B.  S.  LrpRAiiY.  Cop.  a.  P^^A 

CONNECTICUT  y^o.\1^ 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 

NEW    HAVEN,    CONN. 


BULLETIN    172,  JULY,  1912. 


The  Net  Weight  or  Volume  of  Food  Products 
Which  are  Sold  in  Packages. 


•         Bv  John   Phillips  Street. 


CONTENTS. 

Page 

Introduction 4 

Variation  in  Weight  of  Foods  Packed  at  the  Same  Time 6 

Significance  of  Can  Sizes 7 

Accurac)'  of  Claimed  Weight 23 

Changes  in  Weight  of  Dried   Fruits    26 


The  Bulletins  of  this  Station  are  mailed  free  to  citizens  of  Con- 
necticut who  apply  for  them,  and  to  others  as  far  as  the  limited 
editions    permit. 


CONNECTICUT  AdRICHLTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION. 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL. 

His  Excellency,  Simeon  E.  Baldwin,  ex  officio,  President. 

Prof.  H.  W.  Conn,  Vice  President Middletown 

George  A.  Hopson,  Secretary Wallingford 

E.  H.  Jenkins,  Director  and  Treasurer New  Haven 

Joseph  W.  Alsop Avon 

Wilson  H.  Lee Orange 

Frank  H.  Stadtmueller Elmwood 

James  H.  Webb Hamden 


Administration. 


Chemistry. 

Analytical  Laboratory. 


station  staff. 

E.  H.  Jenkins,  Ph.D.,  Director  and  Treasurer. 
Miss  V.  E.  Cole,  Librarian  and  Stenographer. 
Miss  L.  M.  Brautlecht,  Bookkeeper  and  Stenographer. 
William  Veitch,  In  Charge  of  Buildings  and  G7-cunds. 

John  Phillips  Street,  M.S.,  Chemist  in  Charge. 
E.  Monroe  Bailey,  Ph.D.,    C.  B.  Morrison,  B.S., 
R.  B.  Roe,   B.A.,    C.  E.  Shepard,  /Assistants. 
Hugo  L.-\nge,  Laboratory  Helper. 
V.  L.  Churchill,  Sampling  Agent. 


Proteid  Research. 


T.  B.  Osborne,  Ph.D.,  Chemist  in  Charge. 
Miss  E.  L.  Ferry,  A.B.,  Assistant. 
Miss  Luva  Francis,  Stenographer. 


G.  P.  Clinton,  S.D.,  Botanist. 

E.  M.  Stoddard,  B.S.,  Assistant. 

Miss  M.   H.  Jagger,  Seed  Analyst. 

Miss  E.   B.   Whittlesey,  Herbarium  Assistant. 


Entomology. 


W.  E.   Britton,  Ph.D.,  Entomologist :  also  State 

Entomologist. 
B.  H.  Walden,  B.Agr.,     D.  J.  Caffrey,  B.S., 
H.  B.  Kirk,  Assistants. 
Miss  E.  B.  Whittlesey,  Stenographer. 


Forestry. 


Samuel  N.  Spring,  M.F.,  Foresters  also  State 

Forester  and  State  Forest  Fire  Warden. 
W.  O.  Filley,  Assistant  State  Forester. 
Miss  E.   L.  Avery,  Stenographer. 


Plant  Breeding. 


H.   K.  Hayes,   B.S.,  Plant  Breeder. 
C.  D.  HuBBELL,  Assistant. 


THE  NET  WEIGHT  OR  VOLUME  OF  FOOD  PRODUCTS 
WHICH  ARE  SOLD  IN  PACKAGES. 

By  John  Phillips  Street.    ' 


At  the  January  session  of  1911  the  General  Assembly  passed 
the  following  [Chapter  134]  : 

An  Act  concerning  the  Sale  of  Food  in  Package  Form. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  in   General 
Assembly  convened: 

Sec.  I.  Any  person  who  shall  sell  or  offer  for  sale,  food  in  package 
form,  unless  the  net  quantity  of  the  contents  be  plainly  and  conspicuously 
marked  on  the  outside  of  the  package  in  terms  of  weight,  measure,  or 
numerical  count;  provided,  that  reasonable  variations  shall  be  permitted, 
and  that  allowances  shall  be  established  by  rules  and  regulations  made 
from  time  to  time  by  the  dairy  and  food  commissioner  and  the  director 
of  the  Connecticut  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  shall  be  subject  to 
the  penalties  provided  in  chapter  255  of  the  public  acts  of  1907. 

Sec.  2.  The  terms  "person"  and  "food"  as  defined  in  chapter  255  of 
the  public  acts  of  1907,  shall  apply  to  the  provisions  of  this  act,  provided, 
the  term  "food"  as  used  herein  shall  not  include  confectionery  and 
shelled  nuts  when  offered  for  sale  in  packages  at  a  price  not  exfceeding 
ten  cents  each. 

Sec.  3.  This  act  shall  take  effect  from  its  passage,  but  no  penalty  shall 
be  enforced  for  any  violation  of  the  provisions  of  section  one  arising 
from  the  sale  of  food  prepared  and  enclosed  in  package  form  prior  to 
eighteen  months  after  the  passage  of  this  act. 

Approved,  July  11,  191 1. 


The  following-  work  was  undertaken  by  the  writer,  at  the  joint 
request  of  Mr.  H.  F.  Potter,  the  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner, 
and  the  Director  of  this  Station,  to  provide  a  basis  for  making 
the  "rules  and  regulations"  required  of  them  by  this  statute. 
The  samples  referred  to  were  mostly  bought  by  the  Commissioner 
and  the  examinations  were  made  in  the  laboratory  of  this  Station. 


CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT   STATION^    BULLETIN    NO.    I72. 


Introduction. 

All  beverag-es  and  all  ver}^  moist  or  liquid  foods,  as  well  as  all 
food  products  which  are  preserved  for  transport  and  storage  by 
"processing-"  or  sterilizing,  are  necessarily  enclosed  in  "packages" 
of  some  sort.  Other  sorts  of  food  products,  for  which  closed 
retail  packages  are  not  so  necessary,  are  coming  to  be  sold  quite 
commonly  in  this  way. 

This  practice  has  certain  advantages.  The  most  obvious  of 
these  is  the  protection  from  contamination  by  flies,  animals  and 
human  manipulation  and  by  the  dust  and  dirt  of  shop  and  street. 
A  sealed  package  gives  the  buyer  a  reasonable  assurance  that  he 
gets  the  food  just  as  it  left  the  factory  and  this  is -particularly 
important  for  manufacturers  who  claim  specially  clean  factories 
and  sanitary  methods.  Sealed  packages  also  protect  from  sub- 
stitution and  dishonest  manipulation  or  false  weights  and  meas- 
ures of  a  retail  dealer.  They  save  the  dealer  time,  trouble  and 
sometimes  loss  of  material,  and  by  their  attractive  appearance 
tempt  customers. 

The  use  of  packages  also  has  its  disadvantages.  As  a  rule  it 
increases  the  cost  of  food  to  the  consumer.  He  pays  for  the 
attractive  and  somewhat  expensive  containers  either  by  increase 
of  price  per  unit  of  quantity  or  by  decreased  quantity  at  the 
standard  price.  In  sealed  cartons  the  purchaser  cannot  see  the 
food  before  buying' — a  serious  objection  in  the  case  of  such 
things'  as  breakfast  foods  and  dried  fruits,  which  he  sometimes 
finds,  on  breaking  the  package,  to  be  infested  with  insects.  This 
causes  trouble  if  not  loss.  The  size  of  the  container  often 
deceives  the  buyer  as  to  the  amount  of  material  he  is  buying. 
Bottles  with  deeply  concave  bottoms  or  panelled  sides,  and 
breakfast  food  cartons,  especially  of  flaked  foods,  are  likely  to 
be  quite  deceptive. 

The  tables  on  the  following  pages  show  that  many  foods 
are  sold  in  packages  containing  net  weights  of  odd  amounts. 
For  instance,  potted  ham,  6.5  and  10.5  oz. ;  peanut  butter,  7  oz. ; 
condensed  milk,  6  and  14.5  oz. ;  biscuits,  5.25,  6.25,  12  and  14 
oz. ;  corn  flakes,  10.5  oz. ;  rolled  oats,  22  oz. ;  mince  meat,  10 
oz.  It  hardly  seems  likely  that  trade  exigencies  demand  these 
fractional  weights,  but  the  size  of  the  package  often  leads  the 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

consumer  to  believe  that  he  is  receiving  more  of  the  food  than 
is  actually  the  case,  that  is,  an  even  pound  or  fraction  of  a 
pound,  whereas  the  package  generally  contains  less  than  the  near- 
est even  fraction  of  a  pound.  Rolled  oats,  for  instance,  used  to  be 
sold  in  two  pound  packages ;  at  the  present  time  it  is  generally 
in  22  oz.  packages,  but  with  a  price  no  lower,  if  not  higher, 
than  when  ten  ounces  more  were  delivered.  Furthermore,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  a  No.  i  or  No.  2  can  of  corned  beef, 
for  instance,  does  not  mean  one  or  two  pounds  of  the  meat,  but 
12  or  24  oz.  The  weight  of  the  package  is  also  frequently 
included  in  the  alleged  weight  of  the  product.  This  is  quite 
general  with  dried  fruits  such  as  raisins,  currants  and  prunes, 
of  which  "pound  packages"  contain  14  or  15  net  ounces. 

The  law  above  cited  was  passed  to  remedy,  in  part,  these  con- 
ditions and  make  it. possible  for  the  purchaser,  if  he  reads  the 
label,  to  know  just  how  much  food  he  is  obtaining  in  any  par- 
ticular package.  For  instance,  he  will  know  that  the  small  box 
of  cocoa  containing  one-fifth  of  a  pound  of  cocoa  and  offered 
to  him  for  ten  cents  is  actually  more  expensive  than  one  con- 
taining one-fourth  of  a  pound  and  costing  twelve  cents.  He 
will  be  informed  just  how  much  more  of  a  flavoring  extract  he 
is  getting  in  a  twent3^-five  cent  bottle  than  in  a  ten  cent  bottle, 
and  will  learn  that  he  is  obtaining-  more  than  2.5  times  as  much 
of  the  same  brand.  He  will  learn  that  the  dried  fruits  he  buys, 
thinking  they  weigh  a  pound,  usually  weigh  only  14  or  15  oz. 
at  most,  that  the  attractively  cartoned  crackers  which  look  like 
a  half-pound  weigh  only  6^  ounces,  that  the  bottle  of  vinegar, 
cider,  or  whisky  often  sold  as  a  quart,  actually  contains  only 
one-fifth  of  a  gallon. 

The  consumer,  however,  must  clearly  understand  the  limits  to 
the  information  afforded  by  a  statement  of  net  weight  or  measure. 
Many  foods,  like  canned  vegetables  and  fruits,  are  ajud  must  be 
packed  with  more  or  less  water,  which  is  either  natural  to  the 
product  or  is  directly  added.  The  weight  of  a  can  of  vegetables, 
therefore,  gives  no  information  either  as  to  the  quality  of  the 
vegetable  or  the  relative  amounts  of  solid  and  liquid  contained  in 
the  can.  One  can  may  show  a  greater  net  weight  than  another 
and  yet  contain  actually  less  of  the  vegetable  or  fruit  in  question. 
The  statement  of  weight,  therefore,  conveys  no  further  informa- 
tion than  the  amount  of  material,  both  solid  and  liquid,  in  the 


6         CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    1^2. 

can.  The  following  table  of  some  results  of  our  tests  illustrates 
the  matter.  Thus  one  of  two  brands  of  canned  peas,  both  of 
which  had  about  the  same  net  contents,  contained  i6  ounces  of 
drained  peas,  and  the  other  only  10.9  ounces,  or,  in  other  words, 
a  little  more  than  one-quarter  of  the  contents  of  one  was  water 
and  almost  one-half  the  contents  of  the  other. 

Total  Weight  of  Per  Cent 

.  ,                                                                      Net  Drained  Weight  of  Weight  of 

^Veight.  Solids.  Liquor.  Liquor, 

oz.  oz.  oz.  oz. 

Canned  Peas   21.9  16.0  5.9  27.0 

"            "      21.7  10.9  10.8  49.7 

String  Beans  20.6  12.8  7.8  37.9 

19.0  8.0  ii.o  57.9 

Peaches    30.5  19.5  ii.o  36.1 

32.2  16.8  15.4  47.8 

Pears    30.8  20.6  10.2  33.1 

•■••  20.3  11.9  8.4  41.4 

VARIATIONS  IN  WEIGHT  OF  FOODS  PACKED  AT  THE 
SAME  TIME  BY  TliE  SAME  MANUFACTURER. 

The  method  of  procedure  in  collecting  necessary  data  was  as 
follows :  Through  the  courtesy  of  their  owners,  the  writer  was 
given  access  to  the  warehouses  of  two  leading  wholesale  grocers 
in  New  Haven  and  of  one  prominent  retail  grocer  and  oppor- 
tunity to  open  and  examine  any  packages  of  food  products. 
Cases  of  canned  goods,  containing-  from  one  to  three  dozen  cans, 
were  opened  and  the  gross  weight  of  each  individual  can  deter- 
mined in  grams  on  an  accurate  balance.  The  lightest  and  heav- 
iest samples  of  each  lot  were  bought  by  the  dairy  and  food 
commissioner,  numbered  and  sent  to  the  laboratory,  where  the 
contents  were  removed  and  the  can  or  container  cleaned,  dried 
and  weighed.  .  In  this  way  the  net  weights '  of  the  contents  of 
the  lightes*  and  heaviest  packages  of  each  food  were  obtained : 
likewise  the  weights  of  the  empty  containers,  sliowing  their 
variation  in  weight,  if  any.  While  of  course  it  would  have  been 
preferable  actually  to  determine  tlie  net  weight  of  every  package 
weighed,  this  was  impracticable  from  the  standpoint  of  time  and 
expense,  but  it  is  believed  that  the  data  secured  show  with 
reasonable  accuracy  how  uniformly  any  one  manufacturer  can 
and  does  pack  his  product  as  regards  weight.  In  certain  cases, 
for  various  reasons,  less  than  twelve  packages  of  a  brand  were 


^SIGNIFICANCE    OF    CAN    SIZE.  7 

weighed,  but  such  are  exceptional.  About  2,000  packages  in 
all  were  weighed,  representing  150  brands  of  about  75  kinds  of 
foods.  It  was  impossible  to  cover  the  whole  field  at  this  time, 
either  as  regards  kind  of  food  or  size  of  package.  For  instance, 
with  vegetables  and  fruits  we  limited  ourselves  to  the  sizes 
most  commonly  used,  Nos.  2  and  3,  and  the  data  are  quite 
complete   for  these  particular   sizes. 

The  Avork  here  described  is,  of  course,  only  a  beginning  of 
what  needs  to  be  done  and  is  but  a  single  contribution  to  it. 
The  State  law,  however,  calls  for  immediate  action  in  the  matter 
without  waiting"  for  a  complete  survey  of  all  the  trade  conditions 
and  practice.  The  results  given  in  this  bulletin  show  what 
degree  of  uniformity  in  quantity  is  at  present  actually  secured 
by  packers  of  standard  brands.  It  may  be  that  greater  uni- 
formity is  practicable  and  desirable,  but  in  any  case  as  great 
accuracy  as  is  now  obtained  without  specific  legal  requirement 
by  some,  should  be  demanded  of  all. 

Significance  of  Can  Size. 

Frequently  consumers,  and  even  dealers,  are  confused  as  to 
the  meaning  of  No.  i,  No.  2,  No.  3,  etc.,  when  applied  to 
canned  vegetables,  fruits,  etc.  In  the  past  when  the  consumer 
purchased  a  can  of  peas  or  corn  marked  2,  he  believed  he  was 
getting  two  pounds  of  the  vegetable,  whereas  in  fact  he  received 
only  20  to  22  ounces.  Tliis  statement  is  confirmed  by  the  fol- 
lowing extract  from  a  letter  recently  received  by  the  writer  from 
a  prominent  can  manufacturer : 

"The  sizes  designated  as  No.  i,  No.  2,  No.  2^/2  and  No.  3  were  formerly 
known  to  the  trade  as  l  lb.,  2  lb.,  2^  lb.  and  3  lb.  However,  these  latter 
names  were  misleading  for  the  reason  that  none  of  the  sizes  holds  the 
weight  which  these  terms  would  indicate,  hence  the  change  to  the  terms 
now  in  use." 

The  writer  inquired  of  two  prominent  can  manufacturers  as 
to  the  dimensions  of  the  various  sizes  of  standard  cans,  and  the 
following  is  a  summary  of  their  statements.  The  cans  are  of 
two  general  classes,  the  hole  and  cap  or  soldered  cans,  and  the 
"sanitary"  cans  in  which  no  solder  is  used,  except  on  the  side 
seam.  The  dimensions  of  the  two  styles  of  can  vary  slightl}^, 
but  the  capacities  of  the  respective  sizes  are  the  same. 


8         CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    \'J2. 

Table  I. — ^Dimensions  of  Standard  Cans. 

Sanitary.  Hole  and  Cap. 

Size.  Height.  Diameter.  Height.  Diameter, 

in.  im.  in.  in. 

No.  I    4  2y%  4  ^.W 

No.  2    4^  zYz  4i%  ZV% 

No.  2^    4-li  4  4^4  4 

No.  3    4/8  4^  4?^  41^^ 

No.  3,  5  in.  Jersey 5  4^4  5  414 

No.  3,  5 >'3  in.  Jersey 5H  4^  5^  4^ 

No.  10    7  6^  6^  ^Ya 


All  outside  measurements. 


Weight  of  Cans. 

It  is  important  to  determine  what  degree  of  uniformity  of 
weight  the  cans  of  the  same  make  and  size  show,  for  if  the 
weight  of  cans  is  nearly  uniform  the  net  weight  of  the  con- 
tents may  be  determined  with  reasonable  accuracy  without  open- 
ing the  cans.  The  following  table  gives  the  data  which  we  have 
obtained  from  our  own  weighings : 


Table  TI. — Weight  of  Cans. 


Size.  Height, 
in. 

1    3^ 

—  zY% 

—  4^ 

2  aYa 

2    "C"      41*5 

"2  "C"    41% 

2  sanitary 45^ 

2  miscellaneous    41% 

"'2  "  4tk 

—   AY2 

2Y2  sanitary  4ii- 

2,Y2  miscellaneous    . . .  4^4 

3  "C"  4% 

3  miscellaneous    4% 

3  sanitary    5 


Number 

Weight  of  Cans. 

Diameter, 
in. 

Weighed. 

Lowest, 
oz. 

Highest. 

Avera; 
02. 

2Ya 

2 

2.1 

2.1 

2.1 

3/2 

0 

3.6 

3-9 

3.8 

2% 

4 

2.8 

3-1 

3-0 

3^ 

2 

3.2 

3.6 

3-4 

iY^ 

16 

3-3 

4.0 

<3.6 

M 

30 

3-4 

4.0 

z.(> 

sYs 

4 

3.6 

3-9 

3.8 

3Ys 

24 

3-4 

3.8 

2.6 

3H 

36 

3-4 

3-9 

3.6 

3Y2 

2 

4.0 

4.0 

4.0 

4 

2 

4.8 

4-9 

4-9 

4 

6 

4-3 

5.1 

4.8 

4fff 

4 

4.6 

5-4 

5.1 

4^s 

8 

4-7 

5-3 

50 

aYa 

2 

S.6 

5-7 

5-7 

Data  obtained  from  examination  of  canned  peas  in  1909. 


VEGETABLES.  9 

The  limited  number  of  No.  i  and  odd  sized  cans  weighed  show  great 
uniformity  in  weight.  One  set  of  cans  marked  No.  2,  and  containing 
imported  red  peppers,  was  slightly  smaller  than  standard  American  No.  2 
cans,  and  also  weighed  slightly  less.  One  hundred  and  ten  standard  No.  2 
cans  ranged  from  3.3  to  4.0  oz.,  average,  3.6  oz. ;  forty-six  of  these  cans, 
stamped  "C,"  ranged  from  3.3  to  4.0  oz.,  average,  3.6  oz. ;  four  stamped 
"sanitary"  ranged  from  3.6  to  3.9  oz.,  average,  3.8  oz. ;  the  remaining  sixty 
of  miscellaneous  makes  ranged  from  3.4  to  3.9  oz.,  average,  3.6  oz.  Ninety- 
one  of  the  one  hundred  and  ten  No.  2  cans  ranged  between  3.5  and  3.8  oz., 
showing  great  uniformity,  and  indicating  that  an  assumed  weight  of  3.6  oz. 
for  this  size  of  can  is  approximately  correct.  The  eight  No.  2^  cans 
ranged  from  4.3  to  5.1  oz.,  average,  4.8  oz.,  showing  a  slightly  greater  vari- 
ation. The  twelve  No.  3  cans,  4%  x  4^,  ranged  from  4.6  to  5.3  oz., 
average,  5.0  oz.,  while  the  two  No.  3  cans,  5x4^,  weighed  5.6  and  5.7  oz. 


From  the  above  the  following  average  weights  may  be  assumed 
for  standard  cans  of  the  sizes  named: 

oz. 

No.  2  3.6 

No.  214   4.8 

No.  3  (4%  X  4i^ff)    5-0 

No.  3   (5x4^)    ••• 5-7 


Vegetables. 
Six  hundred  and  twenty-three  cans  of  vegetables  were  weighed, 
as  shown  in  the  following  table: 


lO      CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    1 72. 


Table  III. — Vegetables. 


Asparagus 

Asparagus  Tips 

Artichokes 

Beans,  Red  Kidney 

"         Ripe  Lima 

"         Standard  String 

"         String 

Fancy  Refugee 

"        Refugee 

"         Yellow  Wax 

Golden  Wax 

Pork  and  Beans,  A 

"       "         "        B 

Beets,  Cherry 

Corn,  Sweet 

"       Sweet  Sugar 

' '       Maine  Fancy 

Mushrooms,  Selected  Choice 

"            Pieces  and  Stems 
Peas,  Sweet  Wrinkled 

"       Sifted 

Red  Peppers 


Pumpkin,     Golden,     starch 

added  

Pumpkin,  Golden,  ist  quality 

Spinach,  Fancy  quality 

Succotash,  Green  Lima,  Fancy 

"  1st  quality 

Tomatoes,      Hand      Packed, 

Fancy 

Tomatoes,  Hand  Packed 

"  Maryland  Special. . 

Solid 

"  Peeled,  Italian. . . . 


e> 


24 
24 
12 
24 
24 
24 
12 
24 
24 
24 
24 
18 
12 
24 
24 
24 
24 
12 
12 
24 
.24 
x8 
12 

12 
12 
12 

24 

23 

24- 


Gross  weight. 


•  7 


42.5 

37-7 
38 

23.0 
23.2 

21 

38.9 
37 

36.3 
iq.6 


Weight  of  Can. 


37-3 
20.4 
27.7 
25.0 
25.0 
22.5 
23.0 
24.0 
24.3 

24-3 
24.4 
25.6 

25-9 
25.0 
24.9 
24.5 
24-3 
18.3 
17.9 
25.2 
24.8 
20.1 


10.5  10. 1 


43-2 
38.6 

39-1 
25.1 

25-1 


42.8 
38.2 

38.5 
24.6 
24.4 


24-8|23.3 
42.0J40.3 

38.1  37-4 
38.5137-7 

22.2121  .3 


5.7 

3-9 
4.0 

3.7 
3.6 
3-4 
3.6 
3-7 
3-3 
3-4 
3-5 
3-5 
3-4 
3-8 


3-5 
3-5 
3-5 
2.8 
2.9 
3-3 
3-6 
3-2 
2.1 

5.0 
4.6 
5.1 
3-7 
3.6 

3.8 
5.6 

4-7 
4.9 
3.6 


Net  weight. 


8 

5.7 

0 

4.0 

.1 

4.1 

•7 

3-7 

.8 

3.7 

5 

3-5 

6 

3.6 

.7 

3.7 

9 

3.6 

•7 

3-5 

.0 

3.7 

.6 

3-5 

■7 

3-5 

.8 

3-8 

•  5 

3-5 

•  7 

3-7 

6 

3.6 

.1 

2.9 

.1 

3-0 

.5 

3-5 

•9 

3.8 

.b 

3.5 

.1 

2.1 

•3 

5-2 

.4 

5.0 

.1 

5-1 

.8 

3.8 

.6 

3.6 

.8 

3-8 

.7 

5-7 

■9 

4-7 

.2 

5-1 

•9 

3-8 

30.7 

16.0 
22.3 
20.7 
20.7 

18.6 
18.5 
19.9 
20.5 
20.5 
20.6 

21.8 

22.0 
20.3 

21. 1 
20.6 
20.4 
15.0 
14.6 

21.5 
21.0 

14.4 
7.6 

37.5 

33-1 
32.9 
19-3 
19.6 


32.2 
16.8 
24.4 
22.0 
21.6 

19-3 
20.0 
20. 8 
20.8 
21.0 
20.8 
22.5 
22.8 
21.6 
21.8 
20.9 
20.9 
15.7 
15.2 
21.9 
21. 1 
17.4 
8.4 


31.6 
16.4 
23.6 
21.3 
21.3 
19.0 
^19.4 
20.3 
20.7 
20.8 
20.7 

f22.I 
t22.4 
21.2 
21.4 
20.8 
20.7 

1:15.4 
14.9 
21.7 
21.0 

II16.6 
S    8.0 


1.5 
0.8 
2.1 

1-3 
0.9 
0.7 

1-5 
0,9 

0.3 
0.5 
0.2 
0.7 
0.8 

1.3 
0.7 

0.3 
0.5 
0.7 
0.6 
0.4 
0.1 
3-0 
0.8 


37.9  37.6!  0.4 

33-2'  33-2  0.1 

34.0:  33.4  I.I 

21 .31  20.8'  2.0 

21.6  20.8  2.0 


17.8J21.0  19.5    3.2 

33.2I36.4I  34.61  3.2 

32. 3133. 2J  32.7:  0.9 

3i-i!33-7i  32.6'  2.6 

15.9l18.3i  17.5:  2.4 


18  oz.  or  over.         f  22  oz.         .]:  15  oz. 


15.5  oz.         §  7  oz.  claimed  weights. 


Weights  of  Contents. 

Asparagus.  24  samples  ranged  from  30.7  to  32.2  oz.,  average,  31.6  oz., 
21  of  the  samples  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Asparagus  Tips.  24  samples  ranged  from  16.0  to  16.8  oz.,  average, 
16.4  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Artichokes.  12  samples  ranged  from  22.3  to  24.4  oz.,  average,  23.6, 
S  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  and  10  within  i  oz.  of  the  average. 


VEGETABLES.  1 1 

Beans.  24  samples  of  red  kidney  beans  ranged  from  20.7  to  22.0  oz., 
average,  21.3  oz.,  22  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average.  24  samples 
of  lima  beans  ranged  from  20.7  to  21.6  oz.,  average,  21.3  oz.,  all  weighing 
within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average.  36  samples  of  string  beans  of  two  brands 
ranged  from  18.5  to  20.0  oz.,  average,  19.1  oz.,  34  weighing  within  0.5  oz. 
of  the  average.  48  samples  of  refugee  beans  of  two  brands  ranged  from 
19.9  to  20.8  oz.,  average,  20.5,  47  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average, 
48  samples  of  wax  beans  of  two  brands  ranged  from  20.5  to  21.0  oz., 
average,  20.8  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Pork  and  Beans.  30  samples  of  two  brands  ranged  from  21.8  to  22.8  oz., 
average,  22.2  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Cherry  Beets.  24  samples  ranged  from  20.3  to  21.6  oz.,  average,  21.2  oz., 
22  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Corn.    72  samples  of  three  brands  ranged  from  20.4  to  21.8  oz.,  average, 

21.0  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Mushrooms.  24  samples  of  two  brands  ranged  from  14.6  to  15.7  oz., 
average,  15.2  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Peas.  48  samples  of  two  brands  ranged  from  21.0  to  21.9  oz.,  average, 
21.4  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Red  Peppers.  18  samples  in  No.  2  cans  ranged  from  14.4  to  17.4  oz., 
average  16.6  oz.,  9  weighing  within  0.5  oz.,  and  16  within  i  oz.  of  the 
average.  12  samples  in  No.  i  cans  ranged  from  7.6  to  8.4  oz.,  average, 
8.0  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Puntp*kin.  12  samples,  containiiig  added  starch,  ranged  from  37.5  to  37.9 
oz.,  average,  37.6  oz.  12  other  samples  ranged  from  33.1  to  33.2  oz., 
average,  33.2  oz.    All  24  samples  weighed  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  averages. 

Spinach.  12  samples  ranged  from  32.9  to  34.0  oz.,  average,  33.4  oz.,  10 
weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Succotash.  47  samples  of  two  brands  ranged  from  19.3  to  21.6  oz., 
average,  20.8  oz.,  39  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  and  45  within  i  oz.  of  the 
average. 

Tomatoes.  24  samples  of  "hand  packed"  in  No.  2  cans  ranged  from 
17.8  to  21.0  oz.,  average,  19.5  oz.,  13  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  and  17  within 
I  oz.  of  the  average.     12  samples  in  No.  3  cans  (4^x4^)   ranged  from 

31. 1  to  22-7  oz.,  average,  32.6  oz.,  10  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  and  11  within 
I  oz.  of  the  average.  12  samples  in  No.  3  cans  (5x4^4)  ranged  from 
22i-2  to  36.4  oz.,  average,  34.6  oz.,  4  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  and  7  within 
I  oz.  of  the  average.  12  samples  of  "Maryland"  tomatoes  in  No.  3  cans 
(4^x4>^)  ranged  from  z^-^i  to  33.2  oz.,  average,  32.7  oz.,  11  weighing 
within  0.5  oz.  and  all  within  i  oz.  of  the  average.  12  samples  of  imported 
stock  in  odd-sized  cans  ranged  from  15.9  to  18.3  oz.,  average,  17.5  oz., 
7  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  and  11  within  I  oz.  of  the  average. 

Summary.  The  uniformity  in  Aveight  of  the  contents  of  indi- 
vidual cans  of  the  same  brand  of  vegetables,  excepting  artichokes, 
peppers,  succotash  and  tomatoes,  is  very  striking,  and  it  appears 


12      CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    I72. 

that,  in  general,  the  manufacturer  at  present  packs  a  fairly  uni- 
form amount  of  the  vegetable  in  cans  of  the  same  size.  Of 
the  354  samples  of  beans  (various  kinds),  pork  and  beans,  beets, 
corn,  peas  and  peppers,  in  No.  2  cans,  347  weighed  within  0.5 
oz.  of  the  respective  averages.  Pumpkin  and  spinach  in  No.  3 
cans  showed  similar  uniformity.  On  the  other  hand,  artichokes, 
peppers  (No.  i  cans),  succotash,  and  "hand  packed"  or  "solid" 
tomatoes  showed  wider  variations,  especially  the  tomatoes.  The 
"Maryland"  tomatoes,  which  are  of  inferior  quality  and  contain 
more  water  and  less  pulp,  show  much  greater  uniformity  in 
weight  than  the  higher  grade  tomatoes. 

From  the  above  data  it  would  seem  fair  to  make  the  following 
allowances  of  variation  in  quantity  for  canned  vegetables : 

Suggested  Allowances  of  Variations  for  Vegetables. 

Kind.  Size. 

Asparagus  -. 2>4 

"  Tips    I 

Artichokes    ? 

Beans,  Kidney    2 

"        Lima  2 

"        String 2 

"       Refugee   2 

"       Wax    2 

Pork  and  Beans  2 

Beets    2 

Corn   ■ 2 

Mushrooms - 

Peas    2 

Peppers   i 

**  o 

Pumpkin   3 

Spinach    3 

Succotash    2 

Tomatoes    2 

"            high  grade 3 

"           low  grade 3 


Fruits. 

One  hundred  and  sixty-four  cans  of  fruits  were  weighed  as 
shown  in  the  table. 


llowance. 
oz. 

Per  cent. 

.  0.5 

1.6 

0.5 

3-0 

I.O 

4.0 

0.5 

2.4 

0.5 

2.4 

0.5 

2.6 

0.5 

2.4 

0.5 

2.4 

0.5 

2.2 

0.5 

2.4 

0.5 

2.4 

0.5 

3-3 

0.5 

2.3 

0.5 

6.0 

i.o 

6.0 

0.5 

1-4 

0.5 

1-5 

1.0 

4.8 

1.0 

5.4 

1.0 

3-0 

0.5 

1-5 

FRUITS. 


13 


Table   IV. — Fruits. 


Gross  weight. 


Weight  of  can. 


„. 

-. 

q 

"til 

oz. 

or. 

4.8 

4 

9 

3-4 

3 

5 

23-9 

23 

9 

4.8 

5 

I 

4.8 

4 

9 

4-7 

5 

I 

3.8 

3 

9 

4-3 

4 

9 

4.0 

4 

0 

3-6 

3 

8 

Gross  weight. 


Cherries,  Extra  Standard  ...    . 

"         White,  Extra  Quality 

"         Maraschino 

Peaches,  Pie 

"         Yellow  Free 

"         Sliced  Lemon   Cling. 

Pears,  Extra  Banlett 

Bartlett 

Pineapple,  Hawaiian 

Plums,  Extra  Lombard 


2 

jar. 
3 


12 

24 

S 

12 


24 
12 
24 
24 


oz. 

35-7 
23.2 


oz. 

37.0 
24.9 


54.9i55.4 
36.4J38.2 
34-5j3b-i 
35-036o 
23.1  25.3 

34.436-3 
25.7  27.6 
24.4I25.1 


30.8 
19.8 
31.0 

31-3 
29.7 


32.2 
21.4 
31.6 
33-1 


31 


30.3  31 


19.4 
30.1 
21.8 
20.9 


21.3 

31-5 
23.6 
21.3 


31-4 
20.7 

31-3 
32.4 
30.5 
31.0 
21.0 

30.5 
22.9 
21 .1 


1.4 
1.6 
0.6 
1.8 
1.6 
I.I 
1.9 
1-4 
1.8 
0.4 


*  30  oz.   claimed  weight. 

The  variation  in  weight  of  the  containers  has  ah"eady  been 
discussed  under  vegetables. 

Weights  of  Contents. 

Cherries.  12  samples  ranged  from  30.8  to  32.2  oz.,  average,  31.4  oz., 
9  weighing  within  0.5  and  all  within  i  oz.  of  the  average.  24  samples  in 
No.  2  cans  ranged  from  19.8  to  21.4  oz.,  average,  20.7  oz.,  20  weighing 
within  0.5  oz.  and  all  within  i  oz.  of  the  average.  8  samples  of  Maraschino 
cherries  in  glass  jars  ranged  from  31.0  to  31.6  oz.,  average,  31.3  oz.,  all 
weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Peaches.  12  samples  in  No.  3  cans  ranged  from  31.3  to  33.1  oz.,  average, 
32.4  oz.,  9  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  and  all  within  i  oz.  of  the  average. 
24  samples  in  cans,  4^x4,  ranged  from  29.7  to  31.4  oz.,  average,  30.8  oz., 
14  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  and  all  within  i  oz.  of  the  average. 

Pears.    24  samples  in  No.  2  cans  ranged  from  19.4  to  21.3  oz.,  average, 

21.0  oz.,  23  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average.  12  samples  in  cans, 
4^x4,  ranged  from  30.1  to  31. S  oz.,  average,  30.5  oz.,  9  weighing  within 
0.5  oz.  and  11  within  i  oz.  of  the  average. 

Pineapple.  24  samples  in  Nq.  2  cans  ranged  from  21.8  to  23.6  oz., 
average,  22.9  oz.,  18  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  and  22  within  i  oz.  of  the 
average. 

Plums.    24  samples  in  No.  2  cans  ranged  from  20.9  to  21.3  oz.,  average, 

21. 1  oz.,  all  weighing  within  i  oz.  of  the  average. 

Summary.  The  uniformity  in  weight  is  not  as  great  in  pack- 
ages of  fruit  as  in  those  of  vegetables,  but  is  reasonably 
satisfactory.  On  account  of  the  larger  size  of  the  fruits  a  some- 
what larger  allowance  in  weight  should  be  made.  The  following 
allowances  seem  to  be  fair: 


14      CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    I72. 
Suggested  Allowances  of  Variation  of  Weight  for  Fruits. 

Kind.  Size.  Allowance.  Per  cent. 

Cherries  2  0.5  2.4 

3  10  3.2 

Peaches   3  i.o  3.2 

Pears   2  0.5  2.4 

3  i-o  3-3 

Pineapple    2  i.o  4.4 

Plums  2  0.5  2.4 

Fish,  Meats  and  Soup. 

One  hundred  and  twenty  cans  of  fish,  nine  brands,  one  hundred 
and  two  of  meats,  six  brands,  and  forty-two  of  soups,  three 
brands,  were  weighed.  The  cans  were  of  varying  shapes  and 
sizes  and  the  size  has  quite  a  different  significance  from  that 
in  the  case  of  vegetables. 

Table  V.— Fish,  Meats  and  Soups. 


Clams,  Underwood's 

Maine 

Crab,  Extra  Fanc}'  Japan  .  .  . 

Fish  Flakes,  Cod  and  Had- 
dock   

Herrings  in  Tomato  Sauce. .  . 
"        Kippered 

Salmon,  Alaska 

"     Columbia  river,  fancy 

Shrimp,  Barataria 

Bacon,  Beech-Nut  Sliced.  .  . 

Beef,  "         "         "     

Corned  Beef 

Chicken  Boned,  extra  quality 
Potted  Meat,  Ham  Flavor  .  . 

Tongue,  Cooked  Lunch  . . .  . 
Soup,  Mock  Turtle 

"      Tomato 

"      Puree  of  Tomato 


Tall 

I 


Large 
Large 

I 

2 

I    ■ 


I 
Pint 

I 
%  Pt. 


Gross  weight. 

Weight  of  Can. 

Net  wei 

ght. 

r. 

s 

be 

„. 

u! 

M 

, 

-J 

S) 

0 

M 

s 

> 

< 

OZ. 

►3 

J3 

> 

< 

5 

0 

"5) 

5 

> 

oz. 

oz. 

oz. 

oz. 

OZ. 

oz. 

oz. 

oz. 

18.7 

19-5 

19.2 

2.8 

3-1 

3.0 

I.S.6 

16.4 

16.2 

18.419.2 

18.9 

2.8 

2.8 

2.8 

14.9 

16.3 

16. 1 

19.8  20.6 

20.3 

3-6 

4.2 

3-9 

16.2 

16.4 

16.4 

9.412.2 

10.6 

2.1 

2.2 

2.1 

7.2 

10. 1 

8.5 

22.9  24.6 

23.8 

5.4 

5.7 

5.5 

17.6 

18.8 

18.3 

22.4  23. 1 

22.7 

6.0 

6.2 

6.1 

16.2 

17. I 

16.6 

20.1  21. I 

20.8 

3-3 

3.6 

3o 

16.9 

17-5 

17.3 

i7.7|i9-3 

18. b 

3-3 

3-3 

3-3 

14.4 

15.9 

15.3 

lo.o  10.7 

10.4 

2.4 

2.5 

2.5 

7.6 

8.1 

7-9 

12.713.3 

13.0 

2.3 

2.4 

2.3 

10.3 

10.9 

10.7 

20.3  21.  5 

21. 1 

II. 4 

II. 4 

II. 4 

8.9 

10. 1 

*  9-7 

19. I  20.3 

19.6 

II. I 

II-5 

II. 3 

8.0 

8.8 

t-8.3 

15-3  15.9 

15-7 

3.6 

3.b 

3.6 

II. 7 

12.3 

tl2.I 

28.830.3 

29.7 

5-5 

5.5 

5.5 

23.4 

24.8 

24.2 

16.0  17.3 

ifa.8 

3-2 

3-2 

3-2 

12.8 

14. 1 

13.6 

5.0  5.3 

5  2 

1.4 

1.4 

1-4 

3-0 

3-9 

§  3-8 

7.9  8.3 

8.1 

2.7 

2.7 

2.7 

5.1 

5.5 

T5.4 

16.2  17. I 

16.8 

4.2 

4-3 

4.2 

II. 9 

13.2 

12.6 

20.7  21.6 

21. 1 

3.« 

3.8 

3.8 

16.9 

17.7 

17.3 

13-614.3 

13.8 

2.3 

2.4 

2.3 

11-3 

II. 9 

**ii.5 

10.2 

10.7 

10.5 

2.0 

2.1 

2.0 

8.2 

8.6 

8.5 

oz. 

0.8 

1-4 
0.2 


2.9 

1.2 

0.9 

0.6 

1-5 
0.5 
0.6 
1 .2 


0.6 
1.4 
1-3 
0-3 
0.4 
1.3 
0.8 
0.6 
0.4 


9  oz.     f  8  oz.     :}:i2  0Z.     §3.5  oz.     ^[6.502.     **io.5oz.;  claimed  weights. 


FISH,    MEATS    AND    SOUPS.  1 5 

Weights  of  Contents. 

Clams.    24  samples  of  two  brands  ranged  from  14.9  to  16.4  oz.,  average, 

16.2  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Crab.  12  samples  ranged  from  16.2  to  16.4  oz.,  average,  16.4  oz.,  all 
weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Fish  Flakes.  12  samples  ranged  from  7.2  to  10. i  oz.,  average,  8.5  oz., 
6  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  and  10  within  i  oz.  of  the  average. 

Herring.  12  samples  in  tomato  sauce  ranged  from  17.6  to  18.8  oz., 
average,  18.3  oz.,  8  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  and  all  within  i  oz.  of  the 
average.  12  samples  of  kippered  ranged  from  16.2  to  17. i  oz.,  average, 
16.6  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Salmon.  12  samples  in  No',  i  tall  cans  ranged  from  16.9  to  17.5  oz., 
average,  17.3  oz.,  11  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average.  12  samples 
in  No.  I  fiat  cans  ranged  from  14.4  to  15.9  oz.,  average,  15.3  oz.,  10 
weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average.  12  samples  in  flat  halves  ranged 
from  7.6  to  8.1  oz.,  average,  7.9  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the 
average. 

Shrimp.  12  samples  ranged  from  10.3  to  10.9  oz.,  average,  10.7  oz.,  all 
weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Bacon.  12  samples  ranged  from  8.9  to  lo.i  oz.,  average  9.7  oz.,  9 
weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Sliced  Beef.  12  samples  ranged  from  8.0  to  8.8  oz.,  average,  8.3  oz., 
10  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Corned  Beef.  12  samples  in  No.  i  cans  ranged  from  11.7  to  12.3  oz., 
average,  12. i  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average.  12  samples 
in  No.  2  cans  ranged  from  23.4  to  24.8  oz.,  average,  24.2  oz.,  9  weighing 
within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Boned  Chicken.  12  samples  ranged  from  12.8  to  14.1  oz.,  average, 
13.6  oz.,  II  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Potted  "Ham."  18  samples  in  %  tins  ranged  from  3.6  to  3.9  oz., 
average,  3.8  oz.,  12  samples  in  J4  tins  ranged  from  5.1  to  5.5  oz.,  average, 

5.4  oz.    All  of  the  30  samples  weighed  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 
Lunch  Tongue.     12  samples  in  No.  i  tins  ranged  from  11.9  to  13.2  oz., 

average,  12.6  oz.,  8  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 
Soup.     12  samples  in  pint  cans  ranged  from  16.9  to  17.7  oz.,  average, 

17.3  oz.     18  samples  in  No.  i  cans  ranged  from  11. 3  to  11.9  oz.,  average, 
1 1.5  oz.     12  samples  in  half-pint  cans  ranged  from  8.2  to  8.6  oz.,  average, 

8.5  oz.    All  of  the  42  samples  weighed  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  averages. 

With  the  exceptions  of  Fish  Flakes,  which  showed  much 
irregularity  in  packing,  and  of  Herring,  which  naturally  varied 
because  of  the  size  of  the  fish,  these  materials  showed  considerable 
uniformity  in  weight. 

The  following  allowances  seem  reasonable : 


l6      CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    1^2. 

Suggested  Allowances  for  Variation  of  Weight  for 
Fish,  Meats  and  Soups. 

Allowance. 

Kind.                                                      Size.  oz.                   Per  cent. 

Clams    —  0.5  3.1 

Crab    —  0.5  3-0 

Fish  Flakes  —  0.5  5.9 

Herrings  in  Tomato    —  i.o  5.5 

"         Kippered    —  0.5  3-0 

Salmon    Yi  0.5  6.3 

"          I  1.0  6.1 

Shrimp    ■ —  0.5  4.7 

Bacon    large  0.5  5.2 

Sliced  Beef  "  0.5  6.0 

Corned  Beef  i  0.5  4.1 

"           "      2  1.0  4.1 

Boned  Chicken i  0.5  2-7 

Potted  Ham   34  0.25  6.6 

"       1/2  0.25  4.6 

Lunch  Tongue  i  0.75  6.0 

Soup    Yi  pint  0.25  2.9 

pint  0.5  2.9 

"       I  0.5  4.3 


Preserves,  Jelly,  Syrups,  Molasses,  Honey,  Pickles, 
Ketchups  and  Condensed  Milk. 

Two  hundred  and  fifty-seven  packages  of  these  products  were 
weighed.  All  of  the  tin  cans  and  most  of  the  glass  bottles  of 
the  same  size  showed  fairly  uniform  weights.  The  glass  bottles 
and  jars  containing  peanut  butter,  maple  syrup  and  ketchup, 
however,  showed  wide  weight  variations,  and  therefore  with 
these  products  their  gross  weight  is  not  a  safe  indication  of  the 
uniformity  of  the  pack. 


PRESERVES,  JELLY,  SYRUPS,  ETC. 


17 


Table  VI. — Preserves,  Jelly,    Syrups,   Molasses,   Honey,  Pickles, 
Ketchups,  and  Condensed  Milk. 


Peanut  Butter 

Preserves,   Pineapple. 
Plum 

"  Raspberry. . 

"  Strawberry 

Strawberries,  Canned.  , 
Jell)'^,  Currant-Apple. , 
Maple  S3aup,  Choicest 
Fancy  Sj'rup.  Cane  and  Maple 

Molasses,  New  Orleans 

Karo 

Honey,  Compound... 

Chili  Sauce 

Chow  Chow  Pickles. . 
03'Ster  Cocktail  Sauce 
Tomato  Ketchup,  Blue  Label 

Sweet  Gherkin  Pickles 

Sweet  Fancy  Mixed  Pickles. . 

Sweet  Relish  Pickles. 

Salad    Dressing,  Durkee 

Condensed  Milk,  Magnolia. . 
"  "      Van  Camp's 

"  "      Skimmed. 


32 


3X 

6 
16 


12 

4 

4 

8 

8 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

6 

12 

II 

12 

12 

\2 
12 
12 
12 
12 
12 
12 
12 


Gross  weight. 


15.3 
23.1 
22.6 

6 
22.9 

14. 1 

17.6 

33.1 
18.0 

35-2 
36.3 
13-3 
17.8 
17.5 
17.8 
32.3 
17.8 
17.8 
21.0 

9.1 
17.0 

7-7 
19.9 
14.5 


o 
I 

9  22 
6 

5 
5 
5 
7 
8 

7 
7 
8 
o 

5 
I 
8 
o 
9 
7 

9 
6 

5 


14.8 
22.6 
22.5 
22.2 
22.2 
13.8 
17. 1 
31.8 
17.8 
34.3 
35-9 
13.0 

17.3 
17-3 
17.7 
32.0 

17-4 
17.4 
20.6 

8.9 
17.0 

7.6 
19.7 
14.4 


Wt.  of  cortainer. 


6.8 


8.7 
8.9 
2.2 


0.9 

11. 0 
7-4 
3-9 
3-9 
5.5 
8.5 
8.6 
8.0 

14. 1 
8.7 
9-3 
9-5 
5.1 
2.2 
1.5 
2.8 
2.0 


8 

6 

7 
8 
8 

8 

9 

8 

8 

9 

8 

2 

4 

2 

7 

7 

7 

15 

b 

13 

8 

3 

7 

3 

9 

3 

4 

0 

3 

5 

7 

5 

8 

5 

8 

8 

7 

8 

8 

0 

8 

15 

2 

14 

8 

7 

8. 

9 

7 

9 

to 

2 

9 

5 

5 

5 

2 

3 

2. 

I 

i 

I. 

2 

9 

2 

2 

I 

2 

Net  weight. 


6.7 
13.2 

13-3 
13.2 
12.7 
II. 4 

9.6 
17-5 

9.8 
29.9 

31-9 
7.0 

8.3 

8.4 

9-5 

17.0 


0.5 
I  .1 
0.6 
0.5 

1-3 
0.3 


0.3 
1.9 
0.5 
1-4 
0.3 
0.8 
i.o 
0.4 

0.3 
0.4 
1.0 
0.5 
0.4 

O.  I 

0.2 
0.0 

0.4 

O.  I 


Weights  of  Contents. 

Peanut  Butter.  12  samples  ranged  from  6.7  to  7.2  oz.,  average,  7.1  oz., 
all  weighing  within  i  oz.  of  the  average. 

Preserves.  24  samples  of  four  varieties  ranged  from  12.7  to  14.3  oz., 
average,  13.6  oz.,  22  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Canned  Strawberries.  12  samples  ranged  from  11. 4  to  11. 7  oz.,  average, 
II. 5  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  of  the  average. 

Jelly.  12  samples  ranged  from  9.6  to  9.9  oz.,  average,  9.8  oz.,  all 
weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Maple  Syrup.  12  samples  ranged  from  17.5  to  19.4  oz.,  average,  18.5  oz. 
These  variations  are-  probably  quite  as  much  due  to  variations  in  the 
weight  of  the  bottles  as  of  the  contents. 

Fancy  Syrup.  12  samples  ranged  from  9.8  to  10.3  oz.,  average,  lo.o  oz.,. 
all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Molasses.  12  samples  ranged  from  29.9  to  31.3  oz.,  average,  30.4  oz.,, 
all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 


1 8      CONNECTICUT   EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    I72. 

Kara.  12  samples  ranged  from  31.9  to  32.2,  average,  32.0  oz.,  all 
weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Honey.  6  samples  ranged  from  7.0  to  7.8  oz.,  average,  7.4  oz.,  all 
weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Pickles,  Relishes,  Ketchups.  59  samples  ranged  from  7.6  to  9.8  oz,, 
average,  8.7  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  of  the  average.  12  samples  of 
ketchup  ranged  from  17.0  to  17.4  oz.,  average,  17.3  oz.,  all  weighing  within 
0.5  oz.  of  the  average.  12  samples  of  sweet  relish  ranged  from  10.4  to 
10.8  oz.,  average,  10.7  oz.,  all  but  one  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the 
average. 

Salad  Dressing.  12  samples  ranged  from  3.5  to  3.6  oz.,  average,  2>-^  oz., 
all  exceedingly  uniform. 

Condensed  Milk.  48  samples  showed  scarcelj^  any  variation  in  weight 
in  packages  of  the  same  brand,  all  weighing  within  0.25  oz.  of  the 
respective  averages. 

Suggested  Allowances  for  Variation  in  Weight. 

Allowance. 
Material.  Size.  oz.  Per  cent. 

Peanut  Butter  —  0.5  7.0 

Preserves    —  0.5  Z-7 

Jelly   —  0.25  2.6 

Maple  Syrup  ^f^m  i-O         ,     54 

Fancy  Syrup  —  0.5  5.0 

Molasses   2  i.o  3.3 

Karo  2  1.0  3.1 

Honey    —  0.5  6.8 

Chili  Sauce —  0.5  5.7 

Chow  Chow  Pickles   ^  —  0.5  5.8 

Ketchup  J^  0.25  2.6 

I  0.5  2.9 

Sweet  Pickles —  0.5  6.0 

"       Relish   —  0.5  4.7 

Salad  Dressing  —  0.25  7.0 

Condensed  Milk   baby  0.25  4.1 

"              " family  0.25  1.8 

"              "      tall  0.50  3.0 


Crackers  and  Biscuits. 

Two  hundred  and  thirty-five  packages  were  weighed,  repre- 
senting eig-ht  manufacturers  and  twenty-seven  brands.  All  but 
one  of  the  samples  from  the  National  Biscuit  Co.  and  two  of  the 
three  samples  from  the  Johnson  Educator  Food  Co.  guaranteed 
both  the  number  of  biscuits  and  their  weight  on  the  package. 
The  deviations  from  guaranteed  weight  were  exceedingly  small, 


CRACKERS    AND    BISCUITS. 


19 


53U  JO  aSuB'jj 


;  00  CO   u^     O 

S  d  d  d    w 


0>     cnomt-^corJ-i-iT)-or^Ti-Moor^coOC>t^»nMcnt^ 

d     d  d  d  d  M  d  w  m  w  d  d  «  d  w  d  w  w  d  d  w  d  d 


•js3t)3jH 


•p3mre[D 


■aSBJSAv 


o  o  CO  c^    M 


CO    ir)rt*OcOM    O   cnO   iriO   -^O   r-^coiJ"!  O^co    m    -^  r-  o    i-h 
O  cnco-^cnirio  incnOvOoo  inoo  ^00  '^co  rncM  cm  r-~ 


o  r^  CO  O     N 


O  M  r^cncOM  tooo  r^i'^co  i-<  ir>LOM   o  ^   coc\w   O 
w  ^cnvnrt-uTOO  cooooovo   wo  u^o  vnco  xnca   en 


C4  r^  r^    CO 

o  O    (N  CO      O 


r^fi  MO  inco  ThOO  O  coi>-mco  (N  w  i-i   t^co  r^c^cn 


•a3Bj3Av 


.  m  r^  c> 

O    H     M     W 


O  inCT'r^M   OnOO^O   w   Ti-'*>-<   coinco  u~)tj-o   Tj-r^Tt-r-- 
CO  CO  ci  Tt  o  d  w  CO  N  Th  w  w  CJ  CO  M  u->  w   i-i  vd  en  cJ  ci  i-i 


:%  ?! 


•JsaqSiji 


O  0^0      .   tn  Ti-  h-,   XT)     .  CO  O    ^ 

H    CO  m'      ■   w    m    m"   CO     ■   in  1-1    1-1 


o      •    ^^ 


■  O       ■    M    CO  ci      •    M    1-1    (N    CO     ■    in  I-I    I-I 


'aSejSAy 


IN  CO    O      M 

o  CO  Tf-  O      r^ 


m      1*  O    COO 


O   c^^^vOO  oco  r^ooo   co- 


C^     W  CO'CO     O   CO 


•jsaqSjH 


ir,  CO  M       c» 

oco  10  M     CO 


O^    0*0  0    O^  ' 


CM    'rj-oo    Oco    CM    CM    COO    CooiTiincocoO    CM 


•jsaAvcj 


t^  COvO        CO 

o  f^  '^  O      O 


covc  1-1  cor^co  co'^CM  Mco  CM  coo  r^oooo   a\  i-r  \0  r^ 


■paqSiaiw 
jsquinjij 


•*  O  M      CM 


vn     mOr^<MCMONMCMcooOOOOl>cocOTtcooJcoi-< 


•pauiiEio 
jq3pA\  }3j4 


Tj-\0   iTiWOvOco   in 


lO    i-i  CO    rl- 


.CL,i-> 
rtcy  6 


en  •-  K 

ir;0 


uJO 


.do 


z  ^• 


tad      :=: 


t4    s 


•  rC  K^  ^  -S    •  U3  !r; 
'  •-  S3  3  2  2  o  ^ 


«z 


o  cm 


*:      H 


<U    C3    3 


■fl    O 


in  .-i    rt  L-    _    w    ^-    1^ 

5    °    u    P  •-!    u    g  ."   , 
SinODntfiOrt.^' 

►ii^m  o  Pi  Ph  0  o  z 


r=« 


o    tn 

2  JO 


O   I-   'I'   ro   -1 

pq>Hm 


u  o  -= 

O    '-1    03 

CO  Pi-(  cAi 


+^    K*    rt    ij    c 

J5  .be  c  ?>.  S 


2  0      CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION^    BULLETIN    NO.    1 72. 

and  in  general  the  number  of  crackers  present  was  accurately 
stated.  Two  hundred  and  eleven  samples  weighed  within  0.5 
oz.  and  all  within  i.o  oz.  of  their  respective  averages. 

Suggested  Allowances  for  Variation  in  Weight. 

Allowance. 

oz.  Percent. 

2  OZ.  and  less   0.125  6.3 

Over  2  oz.  and  up  to  4  oz 0.25  6.3 

Over  4  oz.  and  up  to  8  oz 0.25  3.1 

Over  8  oz.  and  up  to  i  lb 0.5  3.1 


Table  VIII. — Pastes,   Prepared    Flour,   Breakfast  Foods,   Baking 
Powder  and  Miscellaneous.  ■■  \'..--.j 


Alimentary  Paste,  JMezzani  .  .  .  . 
Macaroni,  Medium  Egg 

"  Egg  Elbow 

"  Anger's  Golden  Seal 
Noodles,  Fine  Egg 

"         Medium  Egg 

Spaghetti,  Egg  Elbow 

"  Italian  St}-le 

Vermicelli,  Superior  White  .  .  .  . 
Flour,  Self-Raising  Prepared  .  . 

"       Pancake 

Corn  Flakes,  Kellogg's 

"  "         Quaker 

*Oats,  Rolled,  Bufceco 

"         Quaker 

Farina,  Hecker's  Cream- 

Baking  Powder,  Roj^al 


Cocoanut,  Shred 


Mince  Meat 

Crisco 

Ice  Cream  Powder,    Jell-O.  . 

Tr3'phosa 

Split  Peas  . 


u 


oz. 

t6 

16 
16 


16 

No.  2 

24 
32 


22 
32 

8 
4 
4 
8 


7 
16 


Gross  weight. 


916.7 

2;i6.8 

7|  7-1 
oj  9.7 

4  10. 1 
3'i6.8 

5  25.1 
9  16.6 
1,25.0 

9  33 
9  12 

3!i2 
832 
9  24.6 

635.1 

5  10.3 

51  5-4 
7 
6 
6 
7 
5-5 
7.q 
8 


5 

4    4 

10 

8    9 

II 

711 

29 

l'28 

5 

7    5 

8 

I    7 

17 

116 

W'g't 

of  Contain'r 

Net  weight.      '  1 

, 

^ 

ho 

^ 

i 

1 

0 

> 

<; 

o 
h-1 

X 

> 
< 

oz. 

oz. 

oz. 

oz. 

oz. 

oz. 

0.9 

0.9 

0.9 

15.6 

16.8 

16.2 

1.6 

1.6 

1.6 

13.4 

16.3 

15. 1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.2 

14.7 

15-9 

15-6 

1.0 

r .  I 

1.0 

5.5 

6.7 

6.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.2 

7.2 

7.« 

7.5 

1.8 

2.0 

1.9 

7.9 

B.5 

8.2 

1-3 

1-4 

1.4 

14.6 

16.0 

15-4 

3-5 

3.b 

3-6 

21.0 

21.9 

21.5 

2.1 

2.2 

2.1 

14.3 

14.8 

14-5 

1 .2 

1.2 

1.2 

23-7 

23-9 

23.8 

1.8 

1.8 

1.8 

31. « 

32.1 

31-9 

2.6 

2.8 

2.6 

B.7 

II. I 

10. 1 

2.8 

2.9 

2.9 

9.0 

9-5 

9.2 

7.3 

9.6 

8.5 

23-4 

23.9 

24.1 

2.0 

2.1 

2.1 

22.0 

22.8 

22.5 

2.6 

2.9 

2.7 

32.3 

32.7 

32.4 

2.2 

2.3 

2.3 

7.9 

8.4 

8.0 

1-4 

1.5 

1.4 

3.8 

4.0 

4.0 

0.7 

0.7 

0.7 

3.b 

4-7 

4.0 

'  0.9 

1.0 

0.9 

7-9 

9.8 

8.7 

0.7 

0.7 

0.7 

10.9 

II. 0 

10.9 

4-4 

4.8 

4.6 

24  I 

24.2 

24.1 

0.6 

0.7 

0.6 

4.8 

5.0 

4.9 

.0.7 

0.7 

0.7 

6.6 

7.4 

7.2 

0.8 

0.8 

0.8 

15-9 

16.4 

16.0 

I  .2 
2.9 
1.2 
1.2 

0.6 
0.6 

1.4 
0.9 

0.5 
0.2 

0.3 
2.4 

0.5 
5 
0.8 
0.4 
0.5 
0.2 
I .  I 
1.9 
o.  I 
0.1 
0.2 
0.8 
0.5 


*  Each  package  contained  glass-ware  of  varying  size  and  weight. 


PASTE^   FLOUR^  BREAKFAST  FOODS,   ETC.  21 

Macaroni,  s^  one  pound  packages  of  three  brands  ranged  from  13.4 
to  16.8  oz.,  average,  15.6,  two  brands  showing  a  decided  tendency  towards 
short  weight;  28  weighed  within  0.5  oz.  and  34  within  i.o  oz.  of  the 
averages.  12  samples  of  smaller  size  ranged  from  5.5  to  6.7  oz.,  average, 
6.1  oz.,  II  weighing  Avithin  0.5  of  the  average. 

Noodles.  24  samples  of  two  brands  ranged  from  7.2  to  8.5  oz.,  average, 
7.9  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Spaghetti.  12  one  pound  samples  ranged  from  14.6  to  16.0  oz.,  average, 
15.4  oz.,  II  weighing  within  o.S  oz.  of  the  average,  but  with  a  tendency 
toward  short  weight.  36  samples  of  cooked  spaghetti  in  No.  2  cans 
ranged  from  21.0  to  21.9  oz.,  average,  21.5  oz.,  all  weighing  within  0.5  oz. 
of  the  average. 

Vermicelli.  12  samples  ranged  from  14.3  to  14.8  oz.,  average,  14.5  oz., 
all  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

Prepared  Flour.  24  samples  of  two  brands  showed  very  slight  varia- 
tions in  weight,  all  weighing  within  0.25  oz.  of  the  average. 

Breakfast  Foods.  12  samples  of  one  brand  of  corn  flakes  showed 
considerable  variation,  ranging  from  8.7  to  11. i  oz.,  average  lo.i  oz.,  9, 
however,  weighing  within  0.5  of  the  average.  12  samples  of  another 
brand  of  corn  flakes  all  weighed  within  0.25  oz.  of  the  average.  24 
samples  of  two  brands  of  rolled  oats  ranged  from  22.0  to  23.9  oz.,  average, 
22,.Z  oz.  The  wide  variations  in  gross  weight  of  one  brand  were  due  to 
the  varying  kinds  of  glass  ware  packed  with  it.  12  samples  of  farina 
weighed  within  0.25  oz.  of  the  average. 

Baking  Powder.  24  samples  of  two  sizes  all  weighed  within  0.25  oz. 
of  the  respective  averages. 

Shred  Cocoanut.  12  samples,  4  oz.  size,  ranged  from  2-^  to  4.7  oz., 
average,  4.0  oz.,  11  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average.  12  samples, 
8  oz.  size,  ranged  from  7.9  to  9.8  oz.,  average,  8.7  oz.,  5  weighing  within 
0.5  oz.  and  11  within  i.o  oz.  of  the  average. 

Mince  Meat.     12  samples  were  practically  identical  in  net  weight. 

Crisco.  12  samples  showed  almost  identical  weights,  averaging  24.1  oz., 
with  a  range  of  o.i  oz. 

Ice  Cream  Powder.     12  samples  showed  a  variation  of  only  0.2  oz. 

Tryphosa.  12  samples  ranged  from  6.6  to  7.4  oz.,  average,  7.2  oz.,  11 
weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  average. 

SpUt  Peas.     12  samples  showed  a  variation  of  less  than  0.25  oz. 

Olives.  48  samples  of  varying  sizes  and  grades  were  weighed.  12  samples 
of  Mammoth  Queen  showed  a  net  weight  from  18.0  to  18.4  oz.,  average, 
18.1  oz. ;  these  contained  from  31  to  32  olives,  weighing  10.4  oz.  12 
samples  of  Selected  Queen  weighed  from  17.8  to  18.1  oz.,  average,  17.6  oz. ; 
these  contained  47  olives,  weighing  10.6  oz.  12  samples  of  Selected  Queen, 
smaller  bottle,  weighed  from  9.8  to  10.4  oz.,  average,  lo.i  oz. ;  these  con- 
tained 18  olives,  weighing  5.1  oz.  12  samples  of  Stuffed  Olives  weighed 
from  4.8  to  5.1  oz.,  average,  4.9  oz. ;  these  contained  from  20  to  26  olives, 
weighing  2.4  oz. 


2  2      CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    1/2. 


Suggested  Allowances  for  Variation 

Material.  Size. 

Macaroni    ; i  lb. 

i/^  lb. 

Noodles   J^  lb. 

Spaghetti,  dry   lib. 

"          cooked    No.  2 

Prepared  Flour    i^  lbs. 

"             "       2  lbs. 

Corn  Flakes standard 

Rolled  Oats  small 

Farina    2  lbs. 

Baking  Powder    ■ /4  lb. 

^  lb. 

Shred  Cocoanut    ^4  lb. 

V2  lb. 

Mince  Meat  — 

Crisco    iVo  lbs. 

Ice  Cream  Powder — 

Tryphosa    — 

Split  Peas i  lb. 

Olives,  Mammoth    large 

"        Selected    large 

small 

"        Stuffed    small 


*  Or  2  olives. 


IN    WeIG 

HT. 

Allowance. 

oz. 

Per  cent 

I.O 

6.3 

0.5 

6.3 

0.5 

6.3 

1.0 

6.3 

0.5 

2.3 

0.25 

1.0 

0.2s 

0.8 

0.5 

5-2 

0.5 

2.2 

0.5 

1-5 

0.125 

3-1 

0.25 

3-1 

0.5 

12.5 

I.O 

12.5 

0.25  . 

2.3 

0.25 

.1.0 

0.25 

5.1 

0.5 

7.0 

0.5 

3-1 

0.5* 

2.8 

0.5* 

2.8 

0.5* 

5.0 

0.25* 

5-1 

Table  IX. — Dried  Fruits. 


*Apples.. . 
f  Currants, 
f  Dates  . .  . 
f Prunes . . 
^Raisins  . . 


Gross  weight. 


Weight  of  Container. 


1.2 

0.8 


15.2  16.0  15.6 
14.7  I5.7I15.4 

13.3  iS.iJH.o  I.I 
I2.9|i4.i  13.5,  1. 1 
i5.6|i6.o|i5.8     0.7 


1.3 
o.S 
1.2 
1. 1 
0.7 


oz. 

1-3 

0.8 

1. 1 
I.I 

0.7 


14.0 

13-9 
12.2 
II. 9 


14.7 
14.9 

13.9 
I3-0 


14.9115.2 


14-3 
14.6 
12.9 
12.4 
15. 1 


0.7 

I.O 

1.7 
I.I 

0.3 


In  stock  one  week.       f  In  stock  four  weeks.       %  In  stock  three  weeks. 


dried  fruits.  23 

Dried  Fruits. 

Sixty  packages  of  five  kinds  of  dried  fruits  were  weighed. 
The  apples,  currants  and  raisins  showed  only  small  variations, 
35  of  the  36  samples  weighing  within  0.5  oz.  of  the  averages. 
With  the  dates  and  prunes  somewhat  larger  variations  were 
found,  yet  19  of  the  24  samples  weighed  within  0.5  oz.  of  the 
averages.  For  the  allowances  suggested  for  dried  fruits  and 
a  study  of  the  losses  in  weight  they  sustain  on  keeping,  see 
page  26. 

Accuracy  of  Claimed  Weight. 

A  definite  weight  was  claimed  on  594  of  the  packages  exam- 
ined. Data  on  this  subject  are  given  in  the  following  table. 
Five  hundred  and  seventeen  of  the  samples  either  exceed  the 
claimed  weight  or  are  deficient  by  less  than  0.25  oz.  Of  the 
yy  deficient  samples  the  deficiency  in  20  samples  appears  to  be 
exceptional,  102  other  samples  of  the  same  brands  fully  satis- 
fying their  claims.  The  remaining  57  samples,  however,  have 
a  general  tendency  towards  short  weight.  The  larger  size 
potted  ham  (6^  oz.),  two  brands  of  domestic  macaroni,  spa- 
ghetti, one  brand  of  crackers  (12  oz.)  and  corn  flakes  are  the 
chief  offenders. 

The  table  shows  that  manufacturers  have  little  difficulty  in 
satisfying  the  weights  they  claim  for  their  products,  and  the 
tables  on  preceding  pages  show  that  nearly  all  the  products  exam- 
ined are  packed  with  reasonably  uniform  weight. 

In  addition  to  the  samples  already  enumerated,  a  considerable 
number  have  been  accurately  weighed  or  measured  during  the 
past  few  years  to  determine  the  conformity  of  the  actual  weight 
or  measure  with  that  claimed.  The  results  obtained  with  478 
of  these  samples  are  given  in  the  following  table.  Most  of 
the  materials  show  quite  satisfactory  agreement  of  claimed  and 
actual  weight.  Flavoring  extracts  and  meat  extracts  showed 
a  slight  tendency  towards  short  weight;  this  was  very  marked 
with  two  samples  of  gelatin,  where  less  than  half  of  the  claimed 
weight  was  furnished,  and  to  a  less  degree  with  beef,  wine  and 
iron,  which  is  very  commonly  sold  short  measure. 


24       CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    I72. 


< 

o 


< 

U 
O 


X 

pa 
<■ 
H 


"5°  d  ~' 

TJ  £  to  ° 


•oSSo 


OOOOOc'^COOOOi-iOOi-iOwO'OOOO 


CJ 


(J   t/i 

O    <U 


U 


O 


j«  -      «.      «    rt    ^    C 


o  .t; 

-5  3 


HP3 


OOOMOOOOOMOMOMOwcO'nOOcnO 


w  5  o  <u  - 


(U 


>.    ^ 


lU  u  rt  " 

U    l_    O    ">    f^    ''^    - 

rt   rt   (J 


X   s   o   O 

ipo££    .    . 


o     _ 

s  s 


Cu  O   O   d 


_; 

0 

Uh 

IJH 

-0 

C3 

rt 

o. 

y 

cuDh 


ACTUAL    AND    CLAIMED    WEIGHT    OR   VOLUME. 


25 


o 


G 

w 
Pi 
< 
p^ 

o 
O 

hJ 
<; 


m 
< 


be 

M 

o^  en  0 

1— i 

^ 

0  C>  " 

0 

M   in  >- 

^    l~~ 

in  M 

« 

« 

a^   w 

hH 

HI 

•*  w   i-H   cn  H   N 

Cl    ^CO    1- 

r^  in 

> 

cn 

■a 

c 
3 

< 

^ 

>2 

u 

■^  -^O  00 

N  in  N   cn  Tj-o 

cn  CO  0  cn 

CJ   in 

"o 

"to 

OOP) 

l-H 

M 

Tj-  H    (N    ■*  w    N 

0  in  o^  cn 

CO  0 

•^ 

cn 

rH 

> 

s 

CO  r^  00 

OO^inoo^r^     nr^Min 

n  cn 

S 

0  in  1-1 

0 

M 

•*  0  «  cn  d  « 

M   cn  r--  0 

VO      HI 

0 

hH 

cn 

HI 

^ 

II 

^iO      f 

M 

N 

^    M      0      -^    W     M 

(N   ■ri-co   0 

CO  0 

0  ri 

0     hH 

cn 

'-' 

>u 

—  2 

0  — 

vC     ^ 

M 

!N 

Nt-inOOm     riMOTt 

0  0 

Z  ffl 

C4 

M 

cn 

M   ^        d    0           cn 

CO 

»! 

C 

(J 

0  , 

_; 

n 

^  - 

"a 

a 
S 

0 

l--fi. 

T3 

rt 

i: 

: 

:    x 

03 

>^ 

« 

>< 

W 

C 

W 

c 
0 

^i              fe 

5. 

^. 

(U   n 

:; 

Vani 
Other 

(U  -     -     - 

.,- 

0   c 
5§ 

0 

*   * 

m 

V 

CO 

hu 

.  <^  0 

0 

M 

cn  ci  w   0  0  1-' 

0    0    Tf  in  in  o^  ^ 

s 

0  in  0 

Tj-co 

cn  ":l-co  0   M   ri 

f)   Ti-  "   C]  -0 

0      HI 

> 

Hi     i-t     i-H 

rs 

<; 

3 

^ 

0 

■— 

S 

.  '^ 

M 

M3 

0  cn  0     •     • 

■   cn     •  in  o^  o^co 

ji; 

-  en 

^00 

cn  '^  c^    •     ■ 

■  Ti-    •  M  0 

0  " 

.y 

KH      rH 

HI 

^ 

^ 

i 

M 

OD 

0 

w  M  cn    •     • 

■   0    •  ^  r--  ©SCO 

t 

c  tn 

en  CO 

cn  Tt  r^    •     ■ 

•   cn     •  <N   in  0    0 

0 

l-H        HH 

J 

■*-"0 

N 

0 

tl 

0  en  M 

Ti-OD 

cn  Ttoo  1^  w  (N 

0)    Tj-  w    n  vC 

M    0 

>^ 

-'0 

^  tn 

Q. 

IN    ►- 

u- 

1  cn 

in  cn  0    w    w    1- 

Hi      M     H     CJ     cn    M     " 

°  £ 

0 

HI 

l-H 

2:« 

C/} 

rt 

^ 

'^ 

77^  -     ^ 

rt 

S'     " 

T3 

cj 

lU 

(U 

<u 

5 

pi 

0)^ 

"o  . 

rt               -^ 

S      ^  :    : 

c 

u  - 

- 

- 

0  -     -      I-  -     - 

be-     '^ 

^'a 

0 

0    -         -           Dh-        - 

1'      g 

45 

0                ci 

0)  — 

C_ 

C 

, 

fl 

0 

U 

c 

S 

26    connecticut  experiment  station^  bulletin  no.  i72. 

Relative  Amounts  of  Solids  and  Liquid  in  Canned  Foods. 

It  has  already  been  stated  in  this  paper  that  the  net  weight  of 
contents  gives  no  certain  evidence  of  the  quahty  of  the  food  in 
question.  The  solid  and  liquid  portions  of  thirty-two  of  the 
brands  weighed  in  this  investigation  were  separated  by  draining 
and  their  respective  weights  determined.  Most  of  the  vegetables 
and  fruits  were  of  first  quality  and  the  figures  show  what  may 
be  expected  in  a  high-grade  article.  In  other  samples,  some  of 
which  were  of  lower  grade,  however,  we  find  relatively  large 
amounts  of  liquor.  In  the  artichokes,  for  instance,  46.8  per  cent, 
was  liquid.  In  six  brands  of  string,  refugee  and  wax  beans, 
which  may  properly  be  grouped  together,  the  liquid  ranged  from 
37.8  to  57.9  per  cent. ;  in  other  words,  in  samples  of  nearly  the 
same  net  weight  one  contained  12.8  oz.  of  drained  beans,  the 
other  only  8.0  oz.  Both  samples  of  mushrooms  showed  a  large 
proportion  of  water,  51.9  and  54.4  per  cent.  One  brand  of 
peaches  contained  33.8  per  cent,  of  liquid,  while  another  had 
47.8  per  cent.  The  canned  strawberries  contained  62  per  cent. 
of  liquid,  while  the  clams  contained  60.9  and  65.8  per  cent. 
These  results,  of  course,  include  a  rather  limited  number  of 
foods,  and  a  still  more  limited  range  of  brands,  and  are  published 
mainly  as  a  matter  of  record,  with  the  intention  of  supplementing 
them  by  future  investigations. 

CHANGES   IN   WEIGHT   OF   DRIED   FRUITS. 

Dried  fruits,  of  course,  always  contain  considerable  water. 
Furthermore,  it  is  stated  that  the  use  of  sulphites  or  sulphurous 
acid  permits  of  a  lesser  degree  of  drying,  and  therefore  a  greater 
content  of  water.  These  products  will  of  course  lose  moisture 
pending  their  sale,  the  amount  depending  on  method  of  packing, 
length  of  time  intervening  between  packing  and  sale,  method  of 
storage,  temperature,  amount  of  exposure  to  the  sun  and  air 
currents,  etc.  It  is,  therefore,  under  present  conditions,  impossi- 
ble for  the  manufacturer  of  such  products  to  label  them  with 
net  weights  which  shall  be  accurate  and  always  represent'  the 
exact  amount  of  fruit  delivered  to  the  ultimate  purchaser.  It 
has  already  been  shown  on  page  23  that  the  careful  manu- 
facturer need  have  little  difficulty  in  packing  his  product  so  that 


RELATIVE    SOLID   AND    LIQUID   PORTIONS. 


27 


O 

o 

fa 

Q 
IS 

< 
O 


2 
O 

o 


o 

o 
o 

w 
Pi 


X 

w 

pa 
<J 
H 


^ 

1 

c    . 

OoociD   OMO   OMr^O 

w    N    0  0^  0 

uS 

00   T)-N    c-iOcoo   coinoo 

0  -*  -^OD    0 

Oy2 

vOinOu-iOOmOr^iricocncnTi-ir)^       ] 

* 

|§ 

_0    O^cO'd-O   r)--^N   w    cnc< 

CO    N    0  ^  "^ 

.?! 

0    Mcowu-iMOcoOOO^t^OOiot^cj         ! 

j(S 

M               M     F-     h-l      W               >H 

1 

=1 

0  r-^  COCO  IT)  ■.*  ^'^i  vOr^Tj-cocDcovo-^.    | 

r^  " 

ocot-OOO^Oi-iOOi-i   ^0    ir>  rt-  0   01         1 

.    0 

*  a, 

MMMMMMI-ICIW-H 

HH 

.- 

' 

°  c 

•    M       •    CO     •       •    M       •    C<l    M 

.^U 

m 

b 

3 

c 

rt 

~ 

3 

0 

£i  Oi 

c 

■o 

C 

c3    nS 

D    0 

0 

•a  i:  0 

tL|     0     (U     c- 

■-  ^    rt 

75 

<o 

rt 

S   X   = 

/5  0 

-a 
0 
0 

r: 

3 

S 

cj  *"  !S 

t<      (U      rt      0    -0 

C    c«    cd  ^    3 

^S^c^^J^ 

^  ^  -  -g :  -  S2 .  S  s  ^ 

■u               rt               c^  -      c    3    "i 

-^     -     (u          0      .s  _  i: 

0              CL,               CL,        CL,  Ph  c/: 

0       C^O 

b 

wcOMOr»wOOi-iu->C 

HI     M   0  CO   00 

1-  0 

OcOCO-s^OMOOMCOvi; 

r^co   in  CO  CO 

vC  r-^iol-^r^^vnoo  inu- 

It-'*  ^+0  vO 

ft^ 

■a  a 

■3  ° 

r~  CO  0  ri-  -rj-  0  0   coco  0   h 

CO    0    M    00 

cr'S 

0    0   -^  0  \risO   w    o»oo  r^co    0  rhco  CO   r^  r- 

J  ° 

>H               1— 1                        M 

Cu 

Sg 

OM-^j-Ol-iOOCOCOwy: 

N  Ti-co   0  Th 

^'S 

0    O^^p^u^"^co^^^^cl<^ll- 

0  r^vD   CO  CO 

«  0 

OMI-ll-l^^                           MMMl- 

*  a, 

^ 

^ 

MW       •MflC^NC^C^IMM 

a       •       -MM 

■ 

55 

1 

X 

1 

0  s 

1 

-H  s 

2  w^ 

to 

0^ 

c 

0 

^    C-O 

^ 

OJ 

T3    re    (U 

.5 

^• 

^ 

be 

X   >- 

ii  en  -t: 

u 

C 

5?  ~ 

.    C    f- 

■a.5 

3 
7i   1 

0:    n 

t 

cj  "  .E 

6  2      ^^ 

0       C«C« 

£  •    .a    in 

2-^-      « 

a     -s  rt 

0    ^         rt  -          1 

tn         )-,(u------- 

< 

< 

Jp: 

5 

ff 

r^ 

a 

2  8      CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    1 72. 

a  series  of  packages  will  show  relatively  uniform  weights  at  the 
start. 

To  determine  the„  shrinkage  of  various  dried  fruits  under  trade 
conditions  a  series  of  experiments  was  carried  out  of  a  two-fold 
nature.  The  first  set  of  tests  was  made  wath  packages  of  currants, 
raisins  and  prunes,  known  to  be  fresh  stock  and  purchased  very 
soon  after  coming  into  the  hands  of  the  wholesaler.  These  were 
weighed  immediately  on  their  receipt  in  the  laboratory,  and  again 
at  intervals  of  one,  two,  three,  four  and  six  months,  being  kept 
all  the  time  in  a  closet  with  a  front  of  wire  netting  and  exposed 
to  slight  air  currents,  but  no  direct  draught,  at  a  temperature 
ranging  from  55°  to  75°  F.  This  is  believed  to  approximate 
quite  accurately  the  usual  store  conditions. 

The  second  set  of  tests  was  made  with  a  much  larger  number 
of  packages  of  apples,  apricots,  currants,  dates,  figs,  prunes  and 
raisins  bought  in  the  open  market,  but  with  no  knowledge  as  to 
the  age  of  the  samples,  although  presumably  they  represented  the 
current  season's  pack.  These  were  weighed  on  receipt  and  again 
at  the  time  of  analysis.  In  the  meantime  they  were  kept  in 
a  closet  with  solid  front,  although  it  was  open  more  or  less 
every  day.  The  temperature  was  not  recorded,  but  probably 
ranged  from  50°  to  70°  F.,  averaging  about  five  degrees  less 
than  in  the  first  series.  The  intervals  between  the  two  weighings 
ranged  from  63  to   150  days. 

Fruits  from  Fresh  Stock. 
While  no  weight  was  claimed  for  any  of  these  samples,  they 
were  presumably  sold  for  one  pound  packages.  The  seventeen 
samples  ranged  from  15.2  to  16.3  oz.,  gross,  and  from  14.1  to 
15.4  oz.,  net  weight.  Only  four  packages  w^eighed  one  .pound, 
gross  weight,  and  none  of  them  one  pound,  net.  There  was, 
therefore,  apparently  a  shortage  in  weight  in  most  of  the  samples 
at  the  start. 

Currants.  Eight  samples,  four  each  of  two  brands,  were  tested.  The 
samples  of  each  brand  showed  a  satisfactory  uniformity  in  weight.  Start- 
ing with  an  average  net  weight  of  14.9  oz.,  one  brand  lost  0.3,  i.3>  i-3,  i-2 
and  1.4  oz.,  respectively,  after  i,  2,  3,  4  and  6  months,  or  a  percentage 
loss  of  2.7,  8.7,  8.7,  8.5  and  9.4,  respectively.  The  other  brand  of  currants, 
starting  with  an  average  net  weight  of  14.8  oz.,  lost  1.4,  2.1,  2.2,  2.0  and 
2.2  oz.  for  the  same  respective  periods,  or  percentage  losses  of  9.5,  14.2, 
14.9,  13.5  and  14.9  respectively. 


CHANGES   IN   WEIGHT  OF  DRIED   FRUITS. 


29 


Table  XIII. — Changes  in  Weight  of  Dried  Fruits. 

From  fresh  stock. 


Currants,  Butter-Nut. 


A  veras:e 


Currants,  Chariot. 


Ai'erao-e. 


5a  Raisins,  Butter-Nut... 

5b 
5c^ 

Average. 


6a  Raisins,    Ideal. 
6b  "  "     . 

6C:  "  "       . 

i  A  verap-e 


7ai  Prunes,   Gold   Medal. 

yb! 

7c| 

A  verap-e 


oz. 

I5-S  I5-0 
15.3I14.6 

i5-7|i5.o 

i5-5|i4- 
1^.6  i4.g 

15.8:14.8 
I5.8;i4.8 
15.8114.8 
15.9I14.0 
i5.8\i4.8 


16.3 

15.6 

16.3 

15.6 

15-3 

14-5 

76.0 

1^.2 

16.2 

15-4 

16.0 

15-2 

15-3 

14-5 

15-8 

15-0 

15.6 

14-5 

15-2 

14. 1 

15.6 

14-5 

15-5 

14.4 

Net  weight  after 


Per  cent.  loss  after 


O  O     I         O        I 

J   ^1  I 


14. 61    .  .    J14.1I13.7  I3.5i2.7: 

13.4113.3      ..       13.3;... 


14.6  13.6 


13.813.6 

.6  13.5 


13- 


i.6: 

i.5l 


.  .  6.0, 

8.2  8.9' 

8.0  9.3! 

8.1  8.8 


13 -7' 13 -5  2. 7\   8.7    8.7    8 


4      .  .      12.9  I2.8|I2.8 

12.7  12.5'    .  .    iI2.5 

..     'I2.8iI2.5      ..     112. 5 

. .    :i2.6[i2.  5I    .  .    I12.5 
ij .4  i2.7\i2 .6  12.8  12.6 


14.6  14.3 


14.6 

ii3.3 
14.2 

14.5 


14-3 
12.9 
13.8 

14.4 


I4.4ji4.3 

13.7  13-6 
'i4.2\i4.i 


10.6 
10.4 
10.7 


10.3 
10.2 
10.3 


TO. 6  10.3 


14. 1 
14. 1 

12.7 


14.4 
14.3 

13.6 

14.  J 

10.2 
10. 1 
10.2 
10.2 


9.5     ..     I2.S|I3 
.  ..|I4.2  15.5 

...13.5,15.5 

. .  .|i5.4'i6.i 
g.S  14.2  14-9 


13 


5.8 
5.3 
5-5 
5-3 


8.3 

8.3! 

11 .0! 

g.2 

6.5I 
5.9 
6.2 
6.o\ 


26.g'29.o| 

26.2|27.7i 

26.2  29.0! 

26.428.3 


9.9 

8.9 

9-3 

8.8 

9-4 

13-5 

15.5 
15.5 
16. 1 

5  14-9 

9.6 
:  9-6 
12.4 
10.3 

\   6.5 

;  5.9 
6.2 

\  6.0 

29.7 
128.4 
129.7 
\2g.2 


All  in    pasteboard    cartons  and  paraffined  paper,   except  6a,  6b,  6c,  with 
which  no  paper  was  used. 


Raisins.  Six  samples,  three  each  of  two  brands,  were  tested.  One 
sample  showed  i.i  oz.  less  net  weight  than  the  other  two  of  the  same 
brand.  One  brand  of  an  average  net  weight  of  15.2  oz.  lost  i.o,  1.4  and 
1.6  oz.,  respectively,  after  2,  3  and  6  months,  or  percentage  losses  of 
6.6,  9.2  and  10.5,  respectively.  The  other  brand,  which  unlike  all  the  other 
samples,  was  not  wrapped  in  paraffined  paper  inside  the  carton,  with  an 
average  net  weight  of  15.0  oz.,  lost  0.8,  0.9  and  0.9  oz.,  respectively,  after 
2,  3  and  6  months,  or  percentage  losses  of  5.3,  6.0  and  6.0,  respectively. 

Prunes.  Three  samples  of  one  brand  with  an  average  net  weight  of 
14.4  oz.  lost  3.8,  4.1  and  4.2  oz.,  after  2,  3  and  6  months,  or  percentage 
losses  of  26.4,  28.5  and  29.2,  respectively. 


so      CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    I72. 

Summary.  All  of  the  samples  practically  ceased  to  lose 
moisture  after  three  months,  and  the  loss  between  the  second  and 
third  months  was  in  general  very  slight.  In  three  months'  time 
one  sample  of  currants  lost  8.7  per  cent.,  the  other,  14.9  per  cent. ; 
one  sample  of  raisins,  9.2  per  cent.,  the  other,  6.0  per  cent. ;  the 
sample  of  prunes,  28.5  per  cent. 

Fruits  from  Stock  of  Unknoivn  Age. 

Ninety-five  samples  were  tested,  including-  12  brands  of  apples, 
2  of  apricots,  18  of  currants,  8  of  dates,  21  of  figs,  2  of  prunes 
and  32  of  raisins.  The  intervals  between  the  two  weighings 
ranged  from  63  to  150  days,  but  since,  as  has  already  been  shown 
in  the  other  series,  dried  fruits  lose  but  little  less  after  two  months 
than  after  three,  or  even  six,  months,  all  the  samples  may  be 
considered  to  have  sustained  their  maximum  loss  under  normal 
trade  conditions,  and  are  therefore  fairly  comparable. 

Apples.  All  of  the  samples  came  in  cartons,  nine  with  the  fruit  wrapped 
in  paraffined  paper,  and  three  without  paper.  The  use  of  the  paper 
apparently  had  little  effect  in  preventing  drying.  The  original  net  weights 
ranged  from  ii.o  to  15.3  oz.,  average,  13.4  oz. ;  after  from  two  to  three 
months  the  losses  ranged  from  0.4  to  3.0  oz.,  average,  1.6  oz.,  showing 
percentage  losses  from  3.5  to  22.3,  average,  11.9  per  cent.  Four  samples 
lost  from  0.4  to  l.o  oz.,  four  from  1.2  to  2.0  oz.,  and  four  over  2.0  oz. 
Two  samples  claimed  a  net  weight  of  one  pound  when  packed ;  these 
weighed  15.3  and  14.0  oz.  when  received  by  us,  the  latter  showing  a 
marked  short-weight. 

Apricots.  Both  of  the  samples  came  in  cartons  with  the  fruit  wrapped 
in  paraffined  paper.  The  original  net  weights  were  13.9  and  15.1  oz., 
average,  14.5  oz. ;  after  from  two  to  two  and  one-half  months  they  lost 
1.2  and  1.5  oz.,  average,  1.3  oz.,  or  percentage  losses  of  8.6  and  lo.o, 
average,  9.3  per  cent. 

Currants.  All  of  the  samples  came  in  cartons  with  the  fruit  wrapped 
in  paraffined'  paper.  The  original  net  weights  ranged  from  ii.o  to  16.2 
oz.,  average,  14.4  oz. ;  after  from  two  to  three  months  the  losses  ranged 
from  0.2  to  1.3  oz.,  average,  0.9  oz.,  or  percentage  losses  from  1.4  to  10.8, 
average,  6.2  per  cent.  One  sample  claimed  one  pound  weight,  and  it 
weighed  16.2  at  time  of  purchase. 

Dates.  All  the  samples  came  in  paraffine  paper  in  cartons,  except  two 
which  were  wrapped  in  several  thicknesses  of  paper.  The  original  net 
weights  ranged  from  9.2  to  16.1  oz.,  average,  11.9  oz. ;  after  six  months 
the  losses  ranged  from  0.4  to  1.9  oz.,  average,  i.o  oz.,  or  percentage  losses 
from  2.5  to  20.7,  average,  8.4  per  cent.  The  greatest  loss,  20.7,  was 
exceptional  and  was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  the  dates  were  in  a 


CHANGES   IN   WEIGHT   OF  DRIED   FRUITS. 


Table  XIV. — Changes  in  Weight  of  Dried  Fruits. 
From  stock  of  unknown  age. 


c 

Net  weight. 

s 

It 

0 

Fruit. 

H 

c 

c 

otS 

ISt. 

2d. 

■"■ 

0 

11 

q 

J 

o 

(1. 

oz. 

oz. 

oz. 

APPLES. 

In  carton 

and  paraffined  paper 

91 

79 

13-4 
13-4 

10 . 6 

2.8 

20.9 

15-5 

II. 4 

2.0 

76 

12.6 

II. 2 

1-4 

11. 1 

75 

13-3 

10.3 

3-0 

22.3 

71 

14-5 

13-7 

0.8 

5.8 

71 

13-9 

13.0 

0.9 

6.1 

70 

*I5.3 

13.2 

2. 1 

14.0 

68 

12.6 

II. 9 

0.7 

5.6 

64 

13.7 

12.4 

1-3 

9.6 

Average ... 

74 

13.6 

12.0 

1.6 

12.3 

In  carton 

;    no  paper 

8^ 

"14.0 
II  .0 

12.8 

1 . 2 

8.2 

71 

10.6 

0.4 

3.5 

71 

13.6 

II. I 

2.5 

18.6 

Average .... 

76 

12.9 

II.5 

1.4 

lo.S 

APRICOTS. 

In  carton 

and  paraffined  paper 

"6 

15-1 
13-9 

13.6 

12.7 

1.5 
1.2 

10. 0 

8.6 

64 

Average.  . 

70 

14-5 

13-2 

1.3 

9-3 

CURRANTS. 

In  carton 

and  paraffined  paper 

87 

15-1 

T  /I       P 

0.6 

3-9 

i4 

D 

87 

14.4 

13 

3 

1. 1 

7.6 

87 

I5-0 

14 

7 

0.3 

2.0 

• 

86 

16.0 

14 

7 

1-3 

8.1 

86 

14.9 

14 

4 

0.5 

3-4 

.  . 

85 

14.4 

12 

9 

1-5 

10.4 

85 

II. 0 

10 

4 

0.6 

5.5 

84 

15-5 

14 

6 

O.Q 

5.8 

80 

14-3 

13 

5 

0.8 

5.6 

77 

15.7 

14 

5 

1.2 

7 . 7 

76 

15-2 

13 

9 

1.3 

8.6 

72 

14-5 

13 

4 

I.I 

7. -6 

72 

15.3 

14 

I 

1.2 

7.8 

71 

II. 4 

10 

3 

I.I 

9.6 

70 

14.4 

14 

2 

0.2 

1-4 

70 

14.6 

14 

4 

0.2 

1.4 

69 

fl6.2 

15 

0 

1.2 

7-4 

65 

II  .1 

9 

9 

1.2 

lo.S 

Average.  .  .  . 

78 

14.4 

13 

5 

0.9 

6.2 

*  Claimed  i  lb.  net  when  packed, 
f  Claimed  i  lb. 


32      CONNECTICUT   EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    I72. 

Table  XIV. — Changes  in  Weight    of  Dried  Fruits — Confd. 
From  stock  of  unknown  age. 


B 

Net  weight.       1 

^ 

u     * 

M 

« 

^Si 

_o 

V,  = 

^ 

Fruit. 

.s 

c 

M 

ibt. 

2d. 

Q 

0 

(£ 

DATES. 

oz. 

oz. 

In 

carton  and  paraffined  paper    

144 

13-3 

12.5 

0.8 

6.0 

144 

*  1-6.1 

15.7 

0.4 

2.5 

143 

II. 5 

10.8 

0.7 

6.1 

143 

12.0 

II. 2 

o.S 

6.7 

142 

10. 1 

9-3 

0.8 

7.9 

135 

X  9-2 

7-3 

1.9 

20.7 

134 

10.4 

9-4 

I.O 

9.6 

133 

§12.5 

10.8 

1-7 

13.6 

Average .... 

140 

II.9 

10.9 

1.0 

8.4 

FIGS. 

In 

wooden  boxes  

88 

4.  7 

4-4 
5-0 

0-3 

6.4 

86 

5.6 

0.6 

10.7 

85 

I3-I 

II. 8 

1-3 

9-9 

81 

5-5 

5-0 

0.5 

9,1 

81 

14.6 

13.8 

0.8 

5-5 

79 

II. 9 

10.5 

1-4 

11. 8 

79 

5.8 

5-1 

0.7 

12. 1 

77 

5.5 

■    5.0 

0.5 

9.1 

73 

4.9 

4.0 

0.9 

18.4 

Average .... 

81 

8.0 

7.2 

0.8 

lO.O 

In 

wicker  baskets 

86 

II. 7 

II. 0 

0.7 

6.0 

81 

13.2 

12. 1 

I.I 

8.4 

79^ 

14.7 

13-4 

1-3 

8.8 

78 

1'i4.3 

12.9 

1-4 

9.8 

.77 

**I3.8 

12.2 

1.6 

II. 6 

72 

9.9 

8.9 

1.0 

10. 1 

71 

10.6 

9-7 

0.9 

8.5 

70 

13.0 

12.0 

I.O' 

7-7 

60 

12.0 

II. 2 

0.8 

6.7 

Average .... 

76 

12.6 

ii-S 

I.I 

8.7 

In 

p£^i*glffined  paper 

79 

78 

3.5 

3-0 

0.5 

14-3 

9.2 

8.1 

I.I 

12.0 

77 

10.9 

9-7 

1.2 

II. 0 

Average .... 

78 

7-9 

6.7 

I.O 

12.7 

PRUNES. 

In 

carton  and  paraffined  paper 

150 

13-5 

II-3 

2.2 

16.3 

133 

15-4 

I3-I 

2.3 

14.9 

Average .... 

142 

14-5 

12.2 

2.3 

15-9 

*  Claimed  i  lb.  net  when  packed. 
X  In  pasteboard  box  with  loose  cover. 
§  Claimed  12  oz.  net  when  packed. 
^  Claimed  i  lb.  net. 
**  Claimed  13^^  oz.  net  when  packed. 


CHANGES   IN    WEIGHT  OF  DRIED   FRUITS. 


33 


Table  XIV.— Changes  in  Weight  of  Dried  Fruits— CWr/'^/. 
From  stock  of  unknown  age. 


RAISINS. 
In  carton  and  paraffined  paper 


In  carton ;    no  paper 


Average . 


Average . 


85 
85 
85 
85 
85 
85 
85 
85 


83 
82 
78 
76 
75 
74 
74 
74 
74 
70 
70 
70 
68 
67 
67 
63 
63 
77 
83 
75 
67 

63 
72 


Net  weight. 


oz.  oz. 


15.5 

14. g 

15.7, 
15.3: 
15.9, 
14-31 
16.0 

^5-3 
14.2 

fflS.Q 
10.6 

tti5.5 
16.3 

15.8^ 
13. 7l 
16.6 

15. 7J 
15. 4I 
II. 4J 
16.0 

14-5 
16.0 
16. 1 
16.3 
14-7 
fi4.6 

14-9: 

15.5' 
I5-I 
I5-4| 
15. 4I 
15-5^ 
13-91 
15.1! 


15.0 
14.4 

15-5 
15.0 
15-5 
13.4 
15.7 
14-5 
13-7 
15.0 
9.2 
15. 1 
15.7 
15.3 

13-2 

15.8 
15.0 

14.7 
II. I 
15.6 
14.0 
15.2 

15-2 

15.6 

14-5 
14.4 
14. 1 
14.8 

14.5 

14.6 
15.0 
14.9 
12.5 
14-3 


0.5 
0.5 
0.2 

0.3 
0.4 
0.9 

0.3 

o.S 

0.5 
0.9 
1-4 
0.4 
0.6 

0.5 
0.5 
o.S 
0.7 
0.7 
0.3 
0.4] 

0.5 
0.8 
0.9 
0.7 
0.2 
0.2 
o.S 

0.7 
0.6 

0.8 

0.6 

1-4 
0.8 


2 

.0 

2 

•  5 

6 

•  3 

I 

•9 

5 

.2 

3 

•5 

5 

•7 

13 

2 

2 

6 

3 

7 

3 

2 

3 

6 

4 

8 

4 

5 

4 

5 

2 

b 

2 

5 

3 

4 

5 

0 

5 

6 

4 

3 

I 

4 

I 

4 

5 

4 

4 

5 

4- 

0 

5 

2 

2 

6 

3 

9 

10. 

I 

5-3 

H  Claimed  i  lb.  gross  when  packed. 
|:j:  Claimed  15-16  oz.  gross  when  packed. 
f  Claimed  i  lb. 


34      CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION,    BULLETIN    NO.    I72. 

pasteboard    box    with    a    loose-fitting    cover.      Omitting   this    sample    the 
average  loss  was  only  7.3  per  cent. 

Figs.  Nine  of  the  samples  were  in  wooden  boxes,  nine  in  wicker 
baskets,  with  paper  between  the  layers  of  fruit,  and  three  simply  wrapped 
in  paraffined  paper.  The  original  net  weights  of  the  boxed  samples 
ranged  from  4.7  to  14.6  oz.,  average,  8  oz. ;  after  from  two  and  one-half 
to  three  months  the  losses  ranged  from  0.3  to  1.3  oz.,  average,  0.8  oz.,  or 
percentage  losses  from  5.5  to  18.4,  average,  lo.o  per  cent.  The  original  net 
weights  of  the  basket  samples  ranged  from  9.9  to  14.7  oz.,  average,  12.6  oz. ; 
after  from  two  to  three  months  the  losses  ranged  from  0.7  to  1.6  oz., 
average,  i.i  oz.,  or  percentage  losses  from  6.0  to  11.6,  average,  8.7  per 
cent.  The  original  net  weights  of  the  samples  in  paper  ranged  from 
3.5  to  10.9  oz.,  average,  7.9  oz. ;  after  two  and  one-half  months  the 
losses  ranged  from  0.5  to  1.2  oz.,  average,  i.o  oz.,  or  percentage  losses  from 
ii.o  to  4.3,  average,  12.7  per  cent.  The  average  percentage  losses  were 
least  in  the  basket  samples  and  greatest  in  those  wrapped  in  paper.  The 
average  loss  in  the  21  samples  regardless  of  method  of  packing  was  lo.o 
per  cent. 

Prunes.  The  two  samples  came  in  paraffined  paper  in  cartons.  Their 
original  net  weights  were  13.5  and  15.4  oz.,  average,  14.5  oz. ;  after  six 
months  the  losses  were  2.2  and  2.3  oz.,  average,  2.3  oz.,  or  16.3  and  14.9, 
average,  15.9  per  cent.  These  losses  were  but  little,  more  than  half  those 
found  in  the  first  series;  one  sample  of  the  same  brand  as  that  used 
in  the  first  series  showed  0.9  oz.  less  net  weight  at  the  time  of  purchase, 
indicating  that  possibly  it  had  been  somewhat  longer  in  stock.  Assuming 
an  original  net  weight  of  14.4  oz.,  as  in  the  first  series,  the  loss  would  have 
been  3.1  oz.,  or  21.5  per  cent. 

Raisins.  Twenty-eight  samples  came  in  cartons  with  paraffined  paper, 
and  four  in  cartons  without  paper.  The  original  net  weights  of  the 
former  ranged  from  10.6  to  16.3  oz.,  average,  15,1  oz. ;  after  from  two 
to  three  months  the  losses  ranged  from  0.2  to  1.4  oz.,  average,  0.6  oz., 
or  from  1.3  to  13.2,  average,  4.0  per  cent.  The  original  net  weights  of 
samples  without  paper  ranged  from  13.9  to  15.4  oz.,  average,  15. i  oz.; 
after  from  two  to  three  months  the  losses  ranged  from  0.4  to  1.4  oz., 
average,  0.8  oz.,  or  from  2.6  to  lo.i,  average,  5.3  per  cent.  The  average 
loss  on  the  whole  thirty-two  samples  was  3.9  per  cent.  One  sample 
claimed  i  lb.  gross  when  packed,  another  15-16  oz.  gross  when  packed, 
and  a  third  i  lb.  The  first  weighed,  when  received,  16.6  oz.  gross  and 
15.9  oz.  net,  the  second  16.1  oz.  gross  and  15.5  oz.  net,  and  the  third 
15.6  oz.  gross  and  14.6  oz.  net. 

Summary.  On  the  average  apples  showed  a  loss  of  11.9  per 
cent. ;  apricots,  9.3  per  cent. ;  currants,  6.2  per  cent. ;  dates, 
y.T,  per  cent.;  figs,  lo.o  per  cent.;  prunes,  15.9  per  cent.;  and 
raisins,  3.9  per  cent.  The  losses  were  about  half  of  those  shown 
in  the  first  series,  namely,  currants,  11.8  per  cent.;    prunes,  28.5 


SUMMARY.  35 

per  cent. ;  and  raisins,  7.6  per  cent.  The  differences  are  possibly 
due  in  part  to  different  storage  conditions  and  in  part  to  the 
fact  that  the  samples  of  the  second  series  had  probably  been  in 
stock  some  time  before  their  purchase  and  had  dried  out  partially. 
With  the  above  data  in  mind,  showing  that  dried  fruits  natur- 
ally shrink  from  4  to  28  per  cent.,  depending  upon  the  kind  of 
fruit,  it  is  not  reasonable  to  expect  that  a  manufacturer  can 
so  label  his  package  as  to  net  weight  as  to  cover  all  natural 
conditions  liable  to  occur  between  the  time  it  is  packed  and 
when  the  consumer  buys  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  packer  can 
control  the  weight  of  the  fruit  at  time  of  packing.  It  seems 
reasonable  and  just,  therefore,  to  require  the  packer  to  state 
on  the  label  the  net  weight  of  the  fruit  when  packed. 


University  of 
Connecticut 

Libraries 


39153029221209 


